And if you believe that, you will believe anything!

I have several times summrised what happened at that meeting and stated that OK produced his proof to the administrator. I am not sure which bit you are having trouble with.
So why mention it again? Everybody who is interested has read all about these facts

Indeed it was not, any more than it is a loan to any other club. But who on earth argued it was a loan? Another of your straw men.

And yet claimed and got admitted as a £1m creditor. And thus voted to that amount. Odd, wouldn't you say?

"Recorded"? Why on earth would it need to be "recorded"? How would it be recorded? For what purpose? A creditors' meeting is attended by - and only by - CREDITORS. There's a clue in the phrase "creditors meeting". Your curious theory is just weird.

Again, nuts. How can there be any dispute as to how much distribution was paid to the Bulls? Unless you think it was paid in cash? The RFL was in fact (and very simply) claiming to be a creditor of OKB on the basis that it claimed OKB having gone into admin, had to pay the distribution money back. If the RFL was right, then it would be a debt. Owed by OKB. To the RFL. It is zero to do with any guarantee. If the RFL wanted to claim any money from OK personally then that would (obviously) be a matter purely between them and him. It would be nothing whatsoever to do with OKB and much less with the administrator of OKB. Either they could prove OK owed them money, or they couldn't. Either way, even you must realise that a creditors meeting of a company in administration is not the forum for a dispute between the RFL and a private individual about a claimed personal debt.

How do you suggest he was "Playing silly buggers"? He was either a creditor or he wasn't. What has that issue got to do with the RFL?

No , Sherlock. I have an equally profound revelation: Bradford Council is a council.

I've got fa slightly ahead on points here but Jim Watt's scorecard favours league dweeb.

I'm waiting for a Froch right hander.

Where's Harry?

From all that has been said, on this and other threads (often [iad nauseum[/i), I feel sure most interested folk must surely have gained the impression by now that this was far from the simple "club runs out of money, club goes bust, club pays price" administration that so many blithly assume or attest?

Of course, some of us have said this all along, to face a barrage of derision and nastiness for our troubles, sadly too from moderators on other forums who should know better. Doubtless the barrage will resume, with increased intensity, once the results of the appeal are announced.

The only real new stuff for me that has come out on this thread is about the recent creditors meeting. Distilling the gist of it, it would seem from what has been said that:

- OK exercised his right to require the aministrator to convene a creditors meeting

- OK presented a claim - one presumes it was a formal "proof of debt"? - very much higher than the value ascribed to his claim in the Statement of Affairs drawn up by the administrator.

- it is unclear why OK's claim was very much higher than the amount recorded as owing to him in the company's books of account. It seems quite possible that , if the claim is valid, proper accounting records have not been kept - an offence under the Companies Act 2006. or, perhaps, he has included in his claim items where he has provided personal guarantees, so argues that HE should stand as the creditor? It all seems very unclear and very strange, and thus far no-one has been able to advance any plausible explanation for it. Dweeb would seemingly very much like to know where it came from. And so would I.

- That claim, provided admitted, would have enabled him to command a majority of the votes at the creditors meeting. As FA pointed out earlier, and in something I had not considered, this would have enabled him to initiate various actions including investigation into the circumstances behind and conduct of the administration. provided, of course, he funded it. One assumes that, when facing personal losses and claims that could well bankrupt you, you would use your best endeavours to stymie whatever you could. If so, then regardless of how responsible I hold OK for the catastrophe (=very much, but far from totally), I could fully understand this action.

- Then, it would seem, the RFL suddenly, and at the 11th hour, came up with a claim of its own as a creditor. Again, one assumes this was in the form of a formal "proof of debt". Again, something that was not recorded in the books and records of the company and, cursiously, something that the RFL seemingly did not lodge with the administrator at the earliest possibel opportunity. FA considers the nature and timing of this claim "odd", and would very much like to know where it came from. And so would I.

That claim, if admitted, was seemingly enoough to counter the claim by OK and, we assume, was sufficient to carry any votes against OK's position at the Creditors meeting? Certainly, the meeting looks to have approved the Administrator's proposals, and not agreed any further action regarding the circumstances behind and conduct of the Administration. That is now a matter of public record at Companies House (form 2.23b filed 21/5 - go pay your £1 to read it, so anyone asking "what happened at the creditors meeting?" can now shut up, since it is a matter of public record.

Readers may well note the curious amounts and timings of the respective claims seemingly lodged (from what our contributors on here report) by OK and by the RFL. And how the alleged RFL claim may effectively have stymied the alleged OK claim, as seems to be being suggested? Although some may still feel this was just a simple "club runs out of money, club goes bust, club pays price" administration, despite what seems to be a hell of a lot going on which is above and beyond what you would expect in such a situation?

Not that Bulls supporters are any strangers to there being much more behind an administration, and its conduct and ultimate resolution, than might first appear? Are we? 2012 redux?

I guess we will never know what would have happened, had Moore kept his mouth shut and not ever said anything to anyone about the (alleged lack of) points deduction? And I suspect we will anyway never really get to know just how extensive the role of the RFL may or may not have been in this whole sad, sorry debacle?

I just hope there isn't a re-match....

Let's hope the referee steps in and calls it off then.

In all that's passed since I'd quite forgotten that, Adey, but yeah, I guess it has to be added to the litany of small, but ultimately significant, mess ups which have undoubtedly helped to put us where we are.

At last. That's it in a nutshell.

The only other issue of interest (except to a few on here) concerns the Sky money. i.e.
'You can stay in SL - but no Sky money this year'
ok, but can I have half this year and half next year instead?
ok - but if you go bust within two years the Club owes us the money back.
ok
and if we don't get it back from the Club, you owe us it personally.
ok

Cut the disingenuous cräp. I expressly said that was NOT how this looks to be, as you well know.

If it WAS, then I would join you and the many others in having no argument.

But it must be as clear as day to even the most wooden-headed denialist that there must be much more to all this.

I think initially it was a simple case of badly managed club runs out of money.

It is the attempts to avoid the responsibility and consequences which have become very tangled.