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?

What I got from that article was a lot of harsh words, but actually they confirmed that the business plan was reliant on a further loan from the RFL. So at least that has been nailed down. Those 3 do seem to like to sue though. So that's the RFL and OK that they are now suing???? They also seem to be making up things forgetting what they said before. "I believe that we have been forced into making this decision, due to the Rugby Football League's proposed sanction of a six-point deduction, making relegation almost a certainty." www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6837795594 Can we reassure fans that we have not walked away because of the six point penalty, as has been widely portrayed. So they portray the reason and then say that was not the reason. Not a very consistent message. Also was it not those same people who put on the club website that they would get no points deducted, but then had to take it down and are now suggesting they where told it would only be 4 points. It just comes across now like they are making it up as they go along.

What I got from that article was a lot of harsh words, but actually they confirmed that the business plan was reliant on a further loan from the RFL. So at least that has been nailed down. Those 3 do seem to like to sue though. So that's the RFL and OK that they are now suing???? They also seem to be making up things forgetting what they said before. "I believe that we have been forced into making this decision, due to the Rugby Football League's proposed sanction of a six-point deduction, making relegation almost a certainty." www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6837795594 Can we reassure fans that we have not walked away because of the six point penalty, as has been widely portrayed. So they portray the reason and then say that was not the reason. Not a very consistent message. Also was it not those same people who put on the club website that they would get no points deducted, but then had to take it down and are now suggesting they where told it would only be 4 points. It just comes across now like they are making it up as they go along.

Does that really differ them from the RFL in that respect.