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!!

Ted could not afford to take legal advise he is broke.....he has squeezed every last penny out of the club and now the well is dry. if he had an ounce of integrety he would walk away. R.I.P Wakey

you continue to be in denial mate......its already been decided irrespective of today's events and if you actually believe otherwise you too are as big a fool as the chump who has been running your club.
As I have said I get no pleasure whatsoever from the fortunes of WT, but the fact is there was no license for 2012 for you anyway......this would have been the final nail in the coffin had it already not been decided.
Do you also really believe that the RFL are still actually deciding who will be going into the championship ?? Get real mate it was decided and confirmed within Red hall months ago !!!

My point regarding the first was that someone who has stood for one party is hardly the most objective when it comes to investigative journalism on what is their main political rival. As for the settling out of court, I didn't state you paid up and admitted an error; as I understand, it was agreed to take it no further. The point I was making was that 'provable facts' as the previous poster indicated did not seem to be forthcoming in this case, otherwise you'd have progressed it to the High Court with confidence.

ask Ted he Knows !!