Take the two!

I'm going for a surprise move and we've agreed to pay creditors more then they're owed and we gain 2 points

(cue RFL/Bulls conspiracy allegations, volume 37...)

But I thought the administration was forced by one of the creditors - the loan company?

Your, otherwise well argued post, implies that going into administration was an act of the OK Bulls management which does not appear to be the case unless there was some sort of collusion between the parties?

Haha how dare you suggest such things on at that club

It was indeed forced by the moneylending company, to whom that idiot Whitcu*t had given a debenture.

As far as I can tell, he knew he held all the cards, and expected to be paid as soon as the deal with OK to transfer the shares was signed. The fact that apparently interest was accruing at totally usurious rates on the loan - sort of like Wonga with attitude - was likely to guarantee it would be paid at the earliest opportunity, I guess?

Once that deal apparently collapsed by OK pulling out, the business will have immediately become insolvent in reality, it already being so technically. So of course there was no way any creditor could be paid. HMRC had already filed for a winding up hearing anyway (set for March), so it seems he exercised his right as a debenture holder to apply to the High Court to appoint an administrator. As closely as I can make it all out, anyway.

I very much suspect the board, and I would not be surprised if also the RFL who seem to have been kept fully abreast of everything going on according to Solly, fully concurred with this being the only way out of the impasse. Solly's reported comments very much suggest this to be so. Certainly, I can't for the life of me see what else was to be done. Remember that administration is also a rememdy for irreconcilable differences between shareholders etc. Had anyone had a better solution, I can only assume they would have contested the application to appoint, which we are not told anyone did? And I feel sure the RFL would have gone apeshìt, and rightly so, had this not been the case.

So, my best guess is that the RFL must have been fully aware of all the circumstances and background (I think the club was anyway in Special Measures?), and must have agreed that not contesting the inevitable application by the moneylender was the only practicable way forward? Of course, the generally supportive initial comments from the RFL gave some people cause to assume the Bulls were getting "favourable treatment". However, I am quite expecting to find all that happened was that they had been trying to broker an outcome, and when one party backed out they continued to support the most practicable outcome available in the circumstances. Well, hoping, at least!

In any case, given the extreme sensitivity of clubs going bust having failed to pay HMRC, I cannot conceive that the RFL would have been so overtly supportive had clear intent to settle the HMRC balance owing not been given. That would have surely placed the RFL at serious risk of contravening the rules for NGOs receiving public sector funding?

That, like all the rest, is only deduction on my part, based on what we know and have been told. I've been proved wrong before across the whole sorry Bulls tragic comedy of recent years, and looked a fool after the event, when further information eventually makes it out into the public domain. So don't shoot me too much if subsequent information proves my deductions to be awry. I can only call it how I see it right now. And I will be pretty upset with the present owners if it transpires that the settle with creditors statement proves disingenuous.

I follow your reasoning and that would appear to be a believable reading of the situation.

In response to the previous poster J.C. perhaps the word "collusion" was a little too strong, maybe "understanding" would have been better?

FWIW, having watched my club, Salford, almost fall over the precipice I hope that there is some equitable outcome to this for Bradford.

You almost get it but are missing a key point.

If you were running, and hoping to be confirmed as the new owner of, the club - but there was a dispute with the old owner which was actually in litigation - so technically you own nothing - and the debenture holder came in demanding full repayment. Let us say that IF you were the new owner, confirmed, you were able and willing to raise the money to repay the debenture. that will stop the administration.

But if you are NOT yet the confirmed owner - and might NEVER be - what are the chances that you would be inclined to put in the money to pay the debenture off?

I don't know if MM & Co. would have been able / willing to raise the money to repay this debt, had they been confirmed owners, maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't, maybe they could have reached a deal with the lender. One thing that is clear to me is once the admin card was played, if it was me, I would also have kept all my personal chips in my pocket. You can understand the debenture holder moving in with an administration if told "No, we aren't paying you...yet". They wouldn't care WHY they weren't being paid, they just want their money back. And you can well understand the present "interim" would-be-owners deciding it was far better to let that go through, and try to gain actual ownership, than take a huge punt on repaying one massive debt when their ownership of the club is up in the air. It's not collusion. It's common sense.

Sorry FA, but I think that rather misses the point of the responsibility of the administrator.

For the Newco that has been formed to obtain assets from OK Bulls (in administration) I thought it was down to the administrator to either :

a) see if Oldco can be run in the interim with a view to it becoming a viable entity once again, either in its own right or by a purchase
or
b) liquidate Oldco, and obtain as much recompense as possible view to paying off the creditors.

In this case Newco Bradford seems to have been formed almost out of thin air, the staff TUPE'd over, SuperLeague and the RFL agreeing that Newco Bradford can stay in the competition fulfilling the promises that Oldco Bradford made - now perhaps I'm being completely naive but isn't the agreement with Superleague to be a part of the competition an asset with a value and if so, then has Newco Bradford paid the administrator for that asset?

Niether a nor b applies- it was a prepack so the administrator came ina and sold off the business almost immediately. If provisionally.

If the RFL did agree any such things then that must have been - by definition - provisional too -i.e unless within the 28 days (or whatever they say it is) someone comes in with a better offer than the prepack.

Adey will know far more than me but i've never heard of this "provisional" prepack business, and assume it is only happening on RFL instructions- and the RFL is in a position to be kingmaker since nothing ultimately happens without their agreement.

100% certainly the SL licence is not a saleable asset. A new owner has to apply to SL to be admitted to SL (or indeed the Championship) and that is that.

I nicked this off a legal website, and doctored it slightly:

[iThe administrator must initially perform his functions with a view to achieving the first purpose, which is to rescue the company as a going concern. Potential purchasers are usually unwilling to buy the shares of a company in administration as this would involve them taking on the liabilities of the insolvent company. Consequently, in practice, this first purpose is rarely achieved.

If it is not reasonably practicable to achieve the first purpose, an administrator may perform his functions with a view to achieving the second purpose. That is, to get a better result for the company’s creditors as a whole than would be likely were the company being wound up without there being an administration first. This purpose can often be achieved by the administrator selling the business as a going concern, where a higher purchase price is paid than if the assets were sold on a break-up basis, which often happens in a liquidation.

If the second purpose is not reasonably practicable, and only if the interests of the unsecured creditors as a whole will not be unfairly harmed as a result, the administrator may perform his functions with a view to selling the assets, in order to make a distribution to one or more secured or preferential creditors. Even if this is the only limb of the statutory purpose that can be achieved, the administrator must still act in the best interests of all of the creditors of the company.[/i

A SL Licence is not an asset with value, since it is awarded by the RFL and they have the full rights to determine to whom, if anyone, it may be transferred, and on what conditions. We saw that pretty clearly 18 months ago. It is not transferrable by the licence holder.

It seems pretty clear that the possibility of the deal reached with OK not being consumated must have been contemplated a bit before it actually happened. Don't forget, the original deal collapsed before Christmas, and it was indicated that the RFL got involved to broker a revised deal. Newco was incorporated in November, we were told to be the vehicle for new marketing opportunities (at least one of which I know about), so they already had a...convenient vehicle.

A prepack does not appear overnight, and it cannot be unreasonable to assume that it was being worked on as at least a fallback, if a final deal over ownership could not be reached? Or that the RFL must have been consulted in that process? Indeed, you would HAVE to have done so, for the administrator to be satisfied that he could accept the prepack in accordance with his responsibilities above?

As it has since transpired in what has seeped out, seemingly the RFL only sanctioned a 28-day licence for Newco, and the administrator only accepted the prepack on the basis that no better offer (see his purposes above) was received. Both of which sound like responsible and reasonably objective actions by the respective parties? One presumes the administrator must have struck a deal for the present incumbents to manage the business in the meantime, and presumably be recompensed for costs should they not ultimately inherit the club? So anyone arguing this was a colluded stitch up would look to be pretty wide of the mark? I would hate to be the current board and provisional owners, working my nuts off with all the responsibilities, yet knowing that the club could be taken from them before the end of the month.

Indeed. But if they do get to keep the poisoned chalice, would be good to kick em in the nuts some more, just for good measure

Oh, I expect there will be any number of folk lining up to do just that...[ipour encourager les autres...[/i

I'm certainly not in that camp - just genuinely interested in the mechanism of what's gone on, and indeed is still going on.

Indeed, I'm sure you are not.

You can come again!

I suspect the majority who WILL be in that camp will be very very much closer to home

I think the issue is that although the reasoning for cutting Ok out and not playing ball with him is understandable it does mean that Bradford haven't cleared 100% of the debt.
This leaves the RFL in a tricky situation with little wriggle room as previously that has involved a point deduction.
My guess is 2-4 points off.

If only OK is left unpaid, then the creditors have been paid as far as I am concerned.

Had OK put his money in as share capital, exactly the same result but it would not be a creditor in legal form. The substance is that it is investment by the owner, and no way on this planet should it rank pari passu with other creditors.

And, in a very short while, no way WOULD it anyway. In order to be able to prepare the company's first accounts on a going concern basis, he would have had to subordinate his loan behind the claims of other creditors anyway.

There is no way on this planet that, just because he chose to put money in as a loan not as shares, the outcome for him and the consequences for the Bulls should be any different. Owner puts money in company cannot pay him back, tough luck you lost.

When it's your decision to make, then the above statement will have relevance, but for now, the decision lies elsewhere.

And just who the fekk are you to tell me whether my expressed opinion has relevance to the discussion?

Coming from someone who routinely contributes so very little to so many threads, that is rich indeed.

Careful, or else he'll hoick his latin phrasebook at ya in a fit of pretentiousness!

I suppose on planet "Coulda , Woulda , Shoulda" you would be spot on. Is your analysis, ceteris paribus (see what I did there), applicable on planet earth?

Exactly how far up your own are you?


A differing opinion to yours seems to bring out the worst in you. You are an apologist for the farcical behaviour of Bradford bulls and you revert to type when anyone dares comment about the farcical going ons at odsal........sorry, iconic odsal!
Your opinion that OK's debt can be somehow "ignored" is ridiculous.......but you probably know that as you don't strike me as being as thick as you are currently coming across

Like it or not but there is an outstanding loan on OK Bulls as a company.
You are not paying it off (understandable) so technically you have not paid 100% of the creditors.
Those are the facts of the situation.

Like I said it leaves the RFL very little wriggle room.
2-4 points off I would imagine.

Nowhere near as far as you are consistently up yours.



Er...you did not express an opinion. In fact, you regularly don't. Like in the above case, where you told me my opinion had no relevance. Just stand back and think about what you were asserting? That YOUR opinion has relevance, but others' do not. You do that very frequently. As I said, who the fekk are you to tell me my opinion has no relevance?

And you frequently resort to insults and derision, like you did just there. You accuse people who disagree with you or object to your attitude of precisely what YOU do. The sad thing is that you really do not seem to realise it.

And as for the point about OK's debt, leaving aside you know fekk all about what has really been going on, if you of all people don't get substance over legal form, then there really is little hope for you.

Substance over legal form - something the RFL can avail itself of - would suggest otherwise, though, I will argue. You seem to be arguing for a points deduction based purely on a legal technicality of how OK chose to put money into the company. I am arguing that the decision should be based on the substance of the matter. But it will anyway all be academic if the new owners - whoever they turn out to be - do not agree to settle with all the other creditors, since a points deduction then would be unavaoidable. So the issue may never even arise.