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.

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.

The other thing I would like to know more about is the RFL's decision to apply a 6 point penalty after BB2014 offered to pay all trade creditors in full over 5years. That seemed to completely wrong foot BB2014 and was not what they had expected after long & significant discussions with the RFL.

Is it something to do with the HMRC position that they can't accept payment if another creditor is getting nothing?

I can see a position where if trade creditors AND HMRC were going to be paid in full, but non trade creditors and Omar were going to get nothing, then the RFL would be comfortable defending a position where BB2014 didn't get a points deduction.

But the HMRC said they wouldn't accept that position.

Going off on a tangent - How would that work? I really cant see the conversation?

"BB2014 - Hi HMRC, you'll have noticed we've dropped £200k (which you were owed) into your account. And we've closed our account so you can't send it straight back.

HMRC - you blackhearted scoundrels. You knew we told you not to send us that money unless all creditors were paid. We will move heaven & earth to force you to take back this taxpayers money you cads...."

Any way, back on track. Here's my theory:

So the RFL plan started to unravel. Their priority is to make sure that HMRC get paid so that the RFL isn't as tarnished in the corridors of power. The trade creditors (RL fans, RL suppliers, local business folk) are less of a priority to the RFL. So they decide to hit BB2014 with the 6point penalty to force them to walk away. Which they did. Why wouldn't you? BB2014 thoughts - "So, if we pay off £500k of creditors, we get a 6 point penalty. RFL - yes. And if we pay off no creditors, we get a 6 point penalty, RFL yes."

So that is what I would like to know more about. Because the trade creditors were stuffed by that RFL process.

From what I remember, it was the RFL that said the HMRC would not accept any payment proposal (which I found a little odd at the time)

If the nature of the RFL's claim is as I understand it to be then you would not expect to see it within the company accounts. From the company's point of view it would be classed as Contingent Liability and therefore not included within the accounts, except perhaps as a note to the accounts.

I suspect that there has been a game of "tit for tat" here. The RFL's claim was against OK and his personal guarantee to repay all SL monies in the event of another insolvency event. I suspect that OK has tried to include this guarantee within his creditor claim and so the RFL have contra'd it as the ultimate creditor of that amount, e.g. it may be due to OK in the first instance but is ultimately due to the RFL via a signed legal agreement, a kind of first charge if you will.

Of course, if we engage in more flights of fancy (another subject Bulls supporters are no strangers to, given the regular flights of fancy we have to endure from those who do not wish us well...) then we could improve on that, could we not? In one particular flight of fancy, for example, a plan to see the creditors paid, with a [iquid pro quo[/i of no points deduction or special measures, might or might not have been stymied by the actions of the likes of, e.g. Carter and the Wakefield Supporters Trust? Albeit in response to certain very unwise statements by a certain then-chairman previously alluded to, which may or may not have put the RFL in a position where they were unable to follow through on the plans hitherto?

As I said, just one total flight of fancy, albeit one that might occur to a creditor who could have been paid, and could now not be paid as a result? But maybe one to bear in mind, in the face of any vitriol that may or may not eminate from some of those who have demonstrated by their actions they do not wish us well?

Remember the RFL told the Bulls to go into admin and there will be no points deduction or ludicrous Sky money penalty

Would not be in the least bit surprised.

Although if the RFL HAD secured a PG from OK, that should not be anything to do with the company at all? Unless the deal between the RFL and OKB for the central funding included a clause allowing the RFL to seek to recover some or all central funding in the event of insolvency? In which case, it would indeed be a sort of contingent liability, a bit like the BBH contingent liability to repay the council the Odsal settlement, pro rata, should the club stop playing its home games at Odsal.

And, maybe, the RFL did not bother to lodge a formal claim initially because of the "yeah, whatever" explanation FA rightly gave earlier regarding further claims when there is no prospect of dividend?

And they lodged a claim only when OK lodged HIS claim, which (uncontested and if admitted) would have given him majority voting rights at a creditors' meeting?

IF we knew that such a clause WAS in place regarding the RFL and the central funding (another one of these agreements not in the public domain?) then that would certainly explain the RFL's action?

Like so many aspects of this disaster, so much of the damage is being done due to speculation - wild or otherwise because key facts necessary to form a reasoned judgment are not in the public domain. And may never become so.

Well we do know that there was a signed agreement between OK and the RFL that all SL monies would be required to be repaid if there was another insolvency event because that has been reported publicly in the press, and is also stated in the administrator's background to insolvency report.

What we don't know is the precise nature of that agreement, which is what is causing the confusion. For instance, it may have been the case that the agreement was that the company was responsible for the repayment but it would default to OK being personally liable should the company have insufficient funds to meet the liability. In which case, the RFL would be perfectly entitled to lodge a creditor claim initially against the company for the amount in question. The administrator would then formally declare that the company could not meet said liability and so the RFL would then have proper recourse to pursue OK for the money.