This is the kind of attention to detail that keeps me reading.

We were never spending up to the cap under OK.

Don't care what more you say on this point, we were well short last year, even the workers in the 'tuck shop' would be able to tell you the same!

I think time & an administration have shown what OK says & does & what actually happens can all be completely different to each other.

Tbf OK did say he would sell all his shares to MM and RW for 300k and signed the deal, giving them time to pay. It was the buyers who then never paid the agreed money. Leaving personalities aside is there anyone on here who would be happy with signing a deal to sell something
for 300k but the buyer then not paying? Be that as it may, MM and RW thus acquired ownership of OKB. Although - and unsurprisingly in the labyrinth that is Bulls business dealings, even that seemingly simple transaction is mired in legal disputes in the litigation commenced by OK to enforce payment which so far as I know is still ongoing.

Wasn't it case that OK agreed to sell his shares to Moore and whitcut for 300k but whitcut subsequently announced that all money OK had 'invested' in club was actually only loans which would be repaid in addition to the 300k sale price?.

Different thing. The sale was of shares in a limited company, between individuals. What you are referring to is a director's loan account OK claimed to have, and would be no more or less valid regardless of the sale of OK's shares.

OK's chances of ever being repaid his loan account may have appeared slim to many, but whatever, it was nothing to do with the share deal.

Sale of shares in club agreed for £300k for "assets" worth £x, turns out during course of sales club worth £x - £600k - would you still be happy to pay £300k?

Bit like looking at buying a house then getting a surveyor's report saying the foundations had been eaten by termits

slight modification NR. Bit like going 50% on buying a house then discovering that your partner had already sold two thirds of it to someone else, that partner being the partner of the vendor. you would call that at best negligence, at worst fraud. and not pay a bloody penny.

Utter nonsense. If anyone knew what they were buying, then how do you reckon MM and RW did not?

On your general point, you are correct on one point, and that is that nobody in that situation (if it existed) would be "happy" to pay. However that has nil to do with the fact that if you agree to buy something, then you owe what you agreed. Caveat emptor. And anyway either MM nor RW ever presented any such argument" for not paying.

More to the point, OK sued RW and MM for the agreed price. Neither of them has advanced any such Defence to his claim and if you were right, are you saying their solicitors are negligent in failing to mount the correct defence?

Well, the only possible option there would be the "accounting irregularities" which the administrator put down as one of the 4 reasons for the insolvency. But that's speculative.

Jumping about like a.looney along with the rest in the directors box. Looked fairly commited to me.

and he seemed to have quite a few Suits around him. lets hope they are potential investors

Thought he said he wouldn't be attending Sunday games?. Noble was say a couple of rows behind us in stand too.

No, Friday and Saturdays games he said he would not be attending.