Take your point, but however cocky Danny Lockwood is regarding his allegations, the fact that he stood for selection as a Tory candidate (assuming it's the same person) doesn't make them wrong, even if his party political inclinations do prove, in my opinion, that he's a complete dick.

Mr Lockwoods paper has published ' News ' stories in it based on ' anonymous ' text messages in the past , well that is what he told me when I challenged him over it , make of that what you will ?

So anyone who doesn't agree with your politics is a complete dick!

Ain't that just fine and dandy!

Come on guys, someone must have a legal mind on here, there were a few calls of foul earlier on about the story not being quite right. Anyone?

And what about Teds claim that a million quid of BVs sale was to go towards Newmarket? Is this correct as we were told differently last week?

What I read on here earlier was that the ground was owned by this IOM company. They will be the legal owners.

Whowever owns that company, ultimately as individuals, does NOT own the ground - at least not directly - since the owner is a corporate body with its own separate legal identity.

But that company is apparently in receivership. That means that the receiver will have taken control of the asset, and will be charged with realising it on behalf of the chargeholder.

If one of the owners of that company happened to be in some form of insolvency, then it is likely that the insolvency practitioner administering the insolvency would have possession of the shares, and would be seeking to dispose of them for the best available price subject to any restrictions that may be placed on transfer of those shares. Almost certainly very messy. Especially since, with the company itself being in receivership, the shares will anyway be worthless.

Bank of Ireland appear to have a first charge on the ground, so they can probably repossess the ground and sell it regardless of the wishes of the receiver. Once their debt has beenn settled (if indeed it ever is) then any surplus is disbursed by the receiver according to a specified order of preference. Seems unlikely there will be any surplus if a bank has had to put a property company into receivership.

I would imagine the books will explain whether or not we received that cash, my question relates solely to the ownership of BV and if that changes with administration or not.
Ted still hasn't explained himself on this, yet (he) the BoD are taking Legal Advice, it just doesn't add up!!!
He wanted £500k not just for the club but to save his investment.
I think if he owns BV then his creditors should be made aware of it, as to me he is guilty of hiding his assets and guilty of duping the fans of Wakefield Trinity into helping him, the sneaky little devil!!
I dont normally go along with the silence is a statement of guilt mob, but i do on this one.

Cheers adey i was hoping for a yes or no!!!
Pretend im a six year old and say it again slowly:
The company that owns it (Ted) is insolvant? so the bank owns it?
the bank can do what it wants to get its money back?
will the administrators (what with this being an IoM company in his childrens names) draw a line from A-B baring in mind was clearly an asset of the rugby club once that was bought with money the company (Ted) never had, for personal gain?

Indeed. Im sure TRB can clarify this for?

Just for the record 'bloomers' the Conservatives asked me if I could do a job for them as Dewsbury MP and despite having never belonged to a political party (I can't stand any of them!) I said I could put up with them if they could put up with me. They couldn't, end of story. As for Shahid Malik, I think you'll find we didn't "settle out of court" - he dropped the case.

Go on Danny Lad get em told.

God you could bore for Britain!

Bitter Fax fan, don't remember you being so gobby when you were on your ar$e begging for money from visiting supporters!
Your argument isn't with us, it's with the RFL, now have a word with yourself and do one!!