Ooh insults. Last resort of a desperate troll

.How about proving some of your claims. Not honest or noble to deride others claims without providing proof of your own, especially when their repeatedly blown out of the water by those who bother to download the legal documents from companies house.

One of the wisest, and recently-enobled, posters on this forum used to paraphrase Bertrand Russell's famous quote "the whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts" in his sig.

He wasn't far wrong, was he?

And one of my own: derision is the last refuge of someone who cannot carry an argument.

Is there any evidence of any signed agreement between OK and the RFL? From the interviews I have heard with Solly, he never actually confirmed anything was signed, just that there was an 'agreement'. I just always assumed the claim made by the RFL was just a Bully (Bully) tactic to shut OK up.

By the way, I don't know the answer to the above, if anyone could shine any light....

The best available evidence is within the administrator's official report which says....

[iIn return for the granting of the Super League franchise to OK Bulls, as part of the purchase Mr Khan agreed to take a 50% reduction in the amount the company would receive from Central Funding for two seasons. The oniginal proposal by the RFL was that no central fundmg would be paid in season one of the new company, It was subsequently agreed that this would be spread over two seasons. [uThis arrangement was supported by a personal guarantee from Mr Khan which would be called upon to repay central funding advances if the company failed again within that two year penod[/u[/i

Thanks for that - Still not sure if anything has been signed, although OK has not kicked up a fuss when this went out in the press.

TBH it would not surprise me if LeagueDweeb was Duffy. LD has all his traits......

I know it is impossible to be the case, but I'm already finding myself refreshing the news feeds and twitter every few minutes for news.

Not that I give a stuff obviously. Way too cool for that.

Who is this Duffy of whom you speak? I don't believe you've mentioned him before in any context.

Indeed.

My problem with that wording has always been that it never made clear whether or not there was a contingent liability upon the company? The wording used there implies that the RFL could pursue OK whether or not there was, and whether or not the company actually made any repayment to the RFL?

It would concern me if there WAS a contingent liability upon the company, and at least the existence of said contingent liability was not referred to in the Administrator's Proposals. Not least because, in the unlikely event that there MIGHT be some dividend for the unsecureds, any crystalised RFL claim would massively dilute the claims of the remaining unsecureds.

Which was why my original conclusion was that it seemed unlikely that there would be such a condition applying to the company. Yet, if the RFL did indeed lodge a large claim, that would very much suggest that there WAS?

So it's got me beat!

And FA is apparently Sutcliffe. That's just leaves OK. My thinking is he is roger daly.

If we've learnt anything from this its that none of us are really OK.

The summary is not the whole story, there was no link to "company failure". They had to complete their 2014 fixtures. Of course if the club went completely tits it might end up that they couldn't complete their fixtures, so in some circumstances it could amount to the same thing, but it doesn't necessarily follow. I see no reason to think the Bulls won't complete their fixtures so that makes it to me a grey area..