If you go for a job interview and are told there will be a 2nd interview for the succesful candidate in a weeks time, and a week later you havent been contacted, its pretty obvious you havent got the job. You dont always need to be told you have been unsuccessful to know you havent been succesful.

From what I have taken from what has been said, Koucash has been a little free in describing 'not the preferred candidate' as 'offer rejected'

Indeed.

As a master business woman, you would have thought she would know the difference between a bidding process and an auction.

Because of course in all bidding processes the seller refuses all attempts to pay more.

Especially when the original sale falls through

When the original sale fell through, a new bidding round was announced with a very clear deadline.

You then bid what you are prepared to pay for the business.

If it was an auction Mar, sorry Mandy, could have stuck her hand up again.

But it wasn't an auction was it?

Nobody said it was an auction, very few bidding processes allow you one bid and one bid only, even when Lamb's bid failed Koucash was not allowed to bid again. That isnt the normal process.

You are completely wrong.

It is totally the normal process that you make your best and final bid by the deadline date.

There is no process to allow a for further bids to be made after the deadline.

I presume when the Lamb bid failed, they went to the next best bidder, which makes sense rather than starting the whole process all over again.

If Mandy had the cash to bid more, she should have put a higher bid in the first place. Seemingly, she tried to get it on the cheap, and failed.

Perhaps I'm being over-simplistic but I look at it this way, any bidder must surely have had a TOTAL cash sum in mind to spend in say the first season, and it doesn't much matter how much of that you apportion to the purchase, if you increase your bid then you just decrease what's available to spend if you win.

On that basis if I were the most cash-rich prospective buyer, throwing in an extra 100K (or whatever) to make damn sure I was the top bidder would make sense. It's less than a month's wages, yet would easily ensure bid success.

Therefore if you do really have the cash, why put in a miserly bid in the range where you must know it will, at the least, be at great risk of being insufficient, if you really want to win?

What? You're not suggesting that Mandy Koukash's bid was a publicity stunt are you?
Next you'll be saying the doctor will make inflammatory remarks at a press event!

It's pretty obvious that the bidding process would have been a complicated one. I don't imagine for one minute that any of the sensible bidders would have made simple cash offers to purchase the club, particularly with the RFL holding the veto. It's likely that all would have set out commitments that the bidders were prepared to undertake in terms of the future running of the club. Equally, I'd imagine that many were of the "take it or leave it" variety with few, if any, being keen to be drawn into a further round of bidding.

Yes there is, The administrators job is solely to secure the best price for the creditors, not to stick to an arbitrary process so that you can try and score points on an RL forum.

Once Lamb's bid failed they were in exactly the same position as when Moore's bid failed, before Mrs Koukash had even shown interest. You are demonstrably wrong

It doesn't follow automatically that he'd be able to to that with the RFL effectively holding the veto though.

That’s true and I don’t think its coincidence that after Lamb things moved very quickly in favour of one of the creditors.

Im just saying it isn’t a set process the administrator is bound to where you bid once and that’s it, especially when the preferred bidder dropped out. We know this is definitely the case because the opposite happened.

There is nothing wrong with Mrs Koukash asking to up her bid, the administrator is in his rights to not allow it.