I have no real doubts about where the £500k went - there is enough information available to me to work it out. It bought another two and a half months, and paid off the bank.

I would prefer to see a fully objective and independent report. We will not ever get that.

The administrator IMO cannot be seen as necessarily independent and objective, since he was apopointed by the replacement board and one presumes with the concurrence of a majority of the then-shareholders, having been previously engaged to carry out a "review" (the precise terms of reference of which we have never been told) on their behalf. In any case, he would only report on matters having a direct impact on what finally happened - I doubt we would see anything much about Harrisgate or Orfordgate or Burgiigate, which would limit its usefullness anyway, although the business of the sale of the ground stinks enough to very much warrant an independent examination.

Short of an independent inquiry - which I am sure we many of us would love to see happen, but never will since who would fund it, and why? - I cannot see any other objective and independent reporting ever likely to happen. Which for me is a great pity, since I would dearly love to know what REALLY happened, and not just what various parties on both sides have told me, or told others, what they say happened - in some cases totally different versions of the same event. I suspect few of those involved would emerge with much credit, although I think Ryan could stand accused of little more than naivity and trusting in others.

Which means that, sadly, yes we are likely to continue to see piecemeal and selective leaking and reporting, and no definitive answers - just more ammunition for those seeking to use it. Indeed, the worst thing that could (and I agree doubtless will) happen. Better nothing is said at all IMO, and we all move on, than stir it all up again especially if it looks to outsiders that scores remain to be settled. Raking over what happened will not change anything, and is IMO likely to bring negative publicity at the worst possible time.

In the absence of an independent report, the administrators report is as near as we're going to get, and like you say, is challenge-able (sp) if including false info. I agree though, Guilfoyle is not independent by association. I didn't mean the report will include info on Harris, Orford etc merely that by using the 'confidential' 'undisclosed' trick and then briefing privately they caused a breach of trust which will only heal with transparency. The report maybe biased in tone but it would be a very grave matter were it biased by omission or falsehood.

Were I advising the board and I strongly suspect Gerry will need no advising on this, it would be to get as much 'out there' as soon as possible. If the team struggle early on, it will provide good cover for what appear to be issues over player budget - something all boards need when picking up a mess like this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what's it to do with Gerry? Or indeed OKB? Unless I'm missing something, they are as much or as little entitled to receive a copy of anything released re the administration as you or I?

My assumption was based on Gerry Sutcliffe being Chairman of the club and MP for the area which makes his involvement/responsibility somewhat greater than mine. As a former minister I'm guessing if anyone knows the procedure for getting reports of this nature released, he will.

How did the administrators report into the collapse of MG Rover get into the public domain?

While we might not know the details we know what the outcome was the club came within a hairsbreadth of disappearing.
I am just glad we survived in SL and will be spending my time looking forward to 2013. I always finf a good rule is not to waste your time worrying about things you cannot chsnge.

rlThe form of return that every insolvency practitioner has to submit to the Insolvency Service regarding the conduct of each director of an insolvent company.rl

Posted so people can see that the report that Guilfoyle has to make is probably not at all what most people assume, or might have been led to expect.

This is a statutory report, which has to be completed in every case for every insolvent company. Nothing in any way special about Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd.

Since it is intended to be used, where necessary, as a basis for bringing criminal proceedings against a delinquent director (i.e. disqualification) (and/or likely to be used in evidence in any action for recovery of funds etc against the director by the IP? FA advise?) then I rather doubt this would become a public document?

Can't see any way that the NON-DIRECTOR honorary chairman of a DIFFERENT company would have any rights to see the report on the conduct of a director of another, legally-unconnected company? And as a sitting MP, he would anyway need to be seen to uphold the highest moral standards, would he not? And I must say that in various meetings with him since his involvement, he has only ever come across to me as genuine, honest and thoroughly reasonable and responsible.

AS MB said earlier, all we are likely to learn is what parties close to the affair, and maybe with axes to grind and scores to settle, choose to tell us. Unless of course criminal action for disqualification is brought against any former director of BBH Ltd - the possibility of which is IMO very remote indeed.

You don't think it's a legitimate enquiry of a sitting MP to find out what happened to hundreds of thousands of pounds of money donated by his constituents? Or, for that matter to act on behalf of a constituent who may have been a creditor? Far from it being irresponsible, I'd suggest it's his job to try and find out what happened.

I take your point about the document forming the basis of any potential prosecution but I find it hard to believe these documents are meant to be kept secret indefinitely. Were the DTI not to recommend prosecution what would be gained?

It seems to me that the relevant part of the form to be completed is 16a which asks for details of any "unfit conduct". l agree with Adey in that I don't know how much use this formal return would be to interested but not directly involved parties such as members of this forum.
As regards Gerry Sutcliffe I doubt whether 100's of thousands was donated by Bradford South constituents. However your point regarding MP's (not just Sutcliffe) acting for constituents who were creditors of the old company is germane.
Like you , I would dearly love to know the true objective story of what happened and why. I just don't know whether the "administration" route is the best way to gather that knowledge.
Oh for a David Conn type investigative journalist to uncover the truth!

The chance of any legal action being taken against any directors is rather lower than an alien landing outside the town hall and buying the winning lottery ticket. If you couple this with the basic legal concept of limited liability for shareholders then however much you huff and puff no-one who suffered a loss as a result of the misguided actions of the previous company is going to get a penny.
As per the pledge money that kept the club running for a few more months so there is no mystery there.

I don't disagree. I just don't know how we make those judgments without seeing the report. The spectre of David Conn is interesting. I strongly suspect one of his key starting points would be the administrators report.

TBH, it seems quite clear (to me at least) that the donated money went to plug the hole left by the withdrawn bank funding, and then to enable the operation to hang on for a further period up to the administration - which was anyway consistent with what we were told at the time, once you stripped all the smoke and mirrors bollox about the nasty evil HMRC and tax bills out of it - I personally don't think there is any huge secret to be discovered about what happened to the £500k. To me that is far and away the easiest of the questions to answer. I have it on good authority, from outside the club, that Hood had lined up administration for if the Pledge failed, and for shortly after Easter. In the event, the directors (old and new) all found they were able to continue in business until June, AFTER the bank got out, so that's a QED for me.

The £500k (and I personally put in about 0.2% of that, and was collectively involved in a further 0.5% so I have as good a reason as most to want explanation) to me is not the issue, although I can fully understand why to most people it is probably the most visible part of the whole debacle and therefore needs explaining. And, as it happens, I am one of Philip Davies' constituents - if I wanted my MP to investigate, I'd have to try and attract HIS interest not Gerry's...

What I am much more interested in is the background to the stadium sale, the role of the RFL, and the loan repayment and its term; what the Hood board's plans were for bringing costs and income back into line given the truly alarming gap that seemingly opened up in 2011 (I presume, with hindsight, they had spent all the 2011 season ticket money, received late 2010, in keeping the ship afloat in Q4 2010 and so had to first run to the RFL early 2011 - when the debenture was put in place) and how much the catastrophic on-field performances of 2011 stymied any such plans; whether what I understood to have happened over Orford is indeed the full story; what really happened over Harrisgate, and who did or did not say what and did or did not do what; how the "new" board post-eviction felt able to continue trading, and yet clearly incur additional tax liabilities that they were unable to pay (remember, Guilfoyle has to report on Coulby and Agar's conduct too, you would hope just as objectively...and I think there are plenty of unanswered questions over their period of office especially since they were the in-situ directors when the music stopped); and a whole load of other financial questions.

But all I expect to appear in the public domain on most or all of the above is what anyone, quite possibly with a vested interest chooses to selectively tell us. Unless of course one of our illustrious RL hacks finally does their job and runs a fully-researched story ...

A business went bust. So do lots of others, sadly. That does not necessarily mean anyone did anything illegal, and it does not even necessarily mean anyone was especially incompetant (although I am sure that, as a minimum, the Peter Principle will be seen to have been demonstrated in spades in this case...) or over-optimistic (although hindsight is wonderful). But I would feel a lot more comfortable if I knew that none of what has gone on and is likely to go on had anything to do with scores being settled, and that the fans were not again being taken for fools.

Heh. Fat chance.

............?

With all these aliens about that might happen! Directors have more rights than the common man (woman or child) who else could destroy all they come into contact with, then walk away and start again. Morally they should be brought to book but legally - snow ball and Hell springs to mind.

In fact, though, company directors have far more legal responsibilities than the "common man". And certainly far far more than the self-employed common man, when it comes to a business falling over, albeit the latter instead faces the horrid direct prospect of personal bankruptcy. To bankrupt a company director when a business foalls over, you'd have to demonstrate trading whilst insolvent, wrongful trading or some other civil-actionable breach of duty.

Or for that matter controlling shareholders, who seem to have fekk all legal responsibility for anything.

I suspect that if there are any possible, any conceivable grounds, for any kind of action whatsoever against Hood, however tenuous, in tru Ahab fashion some of those with strong vested interests may have no hesitation whatsoever in ruthlessly pursuing. So worry not on that score.