Mick has a track record of getting things wrong, despite claiming to in the know.

How about when he announced that all fans who'd pledged would receive free away travel to a game? Sang the praises of the old regime, sang the praises of the new regime. Singing the praises of who every going to have a go next!

A bit of positivity goes a long way, but blind optimism isn't always helpful

This comes from a Facebook group

May a Salford fan wish you all a happy Christmas and express the wish that your financial problems are sorted in the new year. Good luck.

Sorry , I just can't buy that. Saying the Bulls were debt free when OK took over is self evidently pointless.

I'm instintively suspicious of professional debt collectors in any case but increasingly so in this case

Pay back your loans and you should be OK

What a feckin g Shambles, the club go's down not because of the players or the performance. not because of the supporters. but because everybody wants their pound of flesh. i can not see any happy ending or even a start to 2014 SL with this.

Doesn't anyone do due diligence these days?

Lets use a saying "Great men are born out of a fire and lesser men build the fire"

Why would the latest Directors work to benefit Mr Khan and not profit themselves? It would be great for anyone to sit back and profit from competent and committed management.

Mr Khan may have shares but how many and how are they distributed?

A single shareholder only needs 1 ordinary @ £1.00

What actually is he doing...playing poker?

The ground is owned by the RFL (correct me on that one if wrong) and the players and staff are employed by the company. If the company (Bulls) is about to fold why would any board on other clubs buy any on offer. Surely just waiting to pick them up from their agents would be sensible.

So what does Mr Khan own? after the debtors have been satisfied.

His reputation in business is crumbling before his eyes.

The latest board have clearly explained why they have stepped down and quite frankly I am as dismayed at the latest developments as anyone.

I just hope it is not a question of his ego and bitterness because he is embarrassed.

Goodness knows what the Bulls creditors are thinking!!

Presumably, but that does rely on the goodwill and cooperation of the vendor. You can't find stuff they don't want you to find, particularly stuff that's too recent to show up in annual accounts, and undisclosed loans have been mentioned.

If I was thinking of buying a company that had recently been in Administration, had a significant source of funding halved, had just announced that the existing owner had made some sort of loan totalling £900k and was reported to have had recent problems paying the wages, I would want to see a lot more than annual accounts before I went public announcing I was buying that company. To assume control of the company without having gone through the books with a fine tooth comb, and then find that there are major financial problems, seems to fall into the "well what did you expect?" category of disappointing outcomes.

What I don't understand (among many things I don't understand) is that the "new", now "old", directors say that they have put significant money into the club, even though they don't appear to own the shares. What was the basis of that funding? New loans? Why would they do that if OK was holding on to the shares? I could sort of understand them assuming control pending completion of due diligence, but would expect them to keep their brass firmly in their pockets until they knew what they were buying.

All very bizarre.

I can only assume that OK has a properly constructed Loan Agreement in place.

Also if the 3 Directors also used proper channels for their 'loans' then no doubt they may serve notice on the Company for their return.

Otherwise they should be treated as gifts.

Newco seems the only way out of this mess - to be 100% owned by RFL with a view to sell to a third party in 12 months time.

Surely he would have had to disclose that when he "sold" the club?

Well if not then the 3 outgoing Directors would have a good chance of terming the 'loans' as 'gifts'.

If that was the case why did they resign?

What you have here is a lot of misinterpretations. You say loan I say gift, you say would have to disclose loans I say should have disclosed loans, you say potato I say potato (obviously this last one does not translate to the written word but you get my drift). I think the crux of the matter seems to be that whilst Khan holds all the shares he refuses to admit he owns the club and therefore the liabilities.