OK, thanks for that.

I can sort of see why some of the other clubs would object if Bradford had had the benefit and theoretical advantage of a loan which they weren't repaying.

That is what i understood and i think that the amount each club got from their share of the Sky money was about equal to what the Bulls had not paid back in the loan to the RFL.

I sometimes wonder whether the actions of the clubs was as much to punish the RFL for their behind the scenes activity with the Bulls as much as it was about disadvantging the Bulls although it did have that effect on the Bulls.

Trouble is we will never know because no one on either side has released the details of exactly what was said by whom and when and for what reason.

Just something from League Weekly (sorry mods, I couldn't find an online link for the story)

Or, after giving their view, legal proceedings should be kept to the courtroom? Heaven forbid the sport does it's dirty laundry in public.

Edit: surely saying the rfl played "dirty tricks" is defamation in itself? How dare they play tricks like following the rule book!

Which they have gotten called every name under the sun as. Shockingly, that might have invoked a change in tact.

Further, I didn't think uk law (especially defamation law) allowed for further details to be allowed public? What else can they say? They're in a dangerous position with this, they must be pretty convinced they have a water tight case - it will be interesting to see how it develops.

Just as a point - it says total debts they had to take on were 1.5 mill, and the had planned to pay "it all back within 5 years to everyone except ok" (I didn't know we were allowed to pick and choose the creditors we paid, I don't think I fancy paying the electric this month, do you think they'll mind?) didn't bulls owe ok 900,000 aka a pretty major chunk of the debt!?

Are we all still remembering that OK was in charge of the business when it ran up the debts they were paying the price for?

If I was paying *his* debts im not sure I'd consider him a creditor either.

I'm sorry I'm fairly certain that they were *bradfords* debts. Whether he was CEO or tea lady, the by the way he put money into the company, they were the company's debts that any future owners would be responsible for.

You can't pick and choose your debts! It simply doesn't work like that! Whether they agreed with the way he went about business or not. He could of slept with moores wife, it doesn't make a difference. A creditor is a creditor is a creditor.

No, Bradford had nothing to do with it. The entity was OK Bulls, the company which operated the license awarded to the Bradford club. Do keep up, and keep your sexual fantasies in your trousers.

And to have transfer of assets, you need to transfer the debts as well (I was using Bradford as a shell for whatever company is currently the holding company!)

Otherwise, I'd set up 2 business's, get 1 to take out a £100mil loan - place in admin, transfer over the cash assets with none of the debt to my second company, and liquidate the first

Hence whatever debts ok bulls had (including those to ok) would of also been held by bb2014 with the tupe I believe (I could of course be wrong, but then again I'm not even sure financial experts could unravel this mess!)

I know, and I was being a pedantic 2@. Pretty sure that's how the game works.

You're correct on everything but the timescales. In fact I've been making this case for two thick end of two years.

Just to clarify the Bulls received a Grade B license at the end of July 2011.

The RFL purchase of the lease was announced in January 2012. There was no possibility of a developer gaining ownership and development rights through ownership of the Bulls as BMDC owned the freehold and lease stipulated a rugby team played at the ground.

The Quest for Survival was announced in March 2012 whereupon it was made public that Peter Hood had approached the RFL in September 2011, requested and received a loan of £700k.

The RFL apparently approved the laon without requesting a further audit of the club's finances, placing any restrictions on the club signing players (as they did throughout the close season 2012/13) or even insisting Peter Hood call an extraordinary meeting of the shareholders to request their support, prior to approaching the RFL.

It is quite the most extraordinary sequence of events I have witnessed in over 40 years watching rugby league.

I do enjoy reading up on the rules and the like however the hmrc handbook is a bit ... Fiddly! I'll be back to answer whether the rfl were right in their requests for the bond! (If the answer even exists ... )

I struggle to see how Moore and co can win this case, anything short of dated emails, containing the documents, and rfl emails, confirming receipt and understanding of the new proposals leaves room for doubt. If it comes down to character, Moore is someone who has walked away twice after not getting what he wants, one time from a signed contract (which should be easy to prove) - to go from the rfl were helpful, and now were upset to receive a points penalty - to they played dirty tricks is a big step. I'll be interested to see how it develops.

HMRC can, and do, request security deposits from high risk businesses in relation to their future VAT liabilities. Paragraph 4(2a) of Section 11 of the 1994 VAT Act gives them the power to do this. They can apply it where they believe the new company is a high risk of failing to meet its VAT payments.

So, the rfl were more on the ball than Moore and co. Good start (whether it was 6 figures or not can't be calculated I imagine?)

On a more pressing matter - I retread the article published - Moore and co put on Sundays game? If the assets had been returned to okbulls, surely they wouldn't of had the power to do so?