I think I'm keeping up with all this......but one question

has Ted actually benefitted from this deal?
I am no fan but I can't decide whether he is a fraud or just stupid.

That's the £2,800,000 Question!

Is it implausible he took the loan out to see Trin through a period which may otherwise have left us unable to meet our outgoings to such an extent that we would of been screwed anyway? But if so why didn't we receive all the money? so many questions so few answers

Depends what way this works, if it is directly from the reciever you may be better off than if the debt was passed to the state agency known as NAMA(National assets management agency) If this happens you could be up poop creek as they are well known over here in Ireland for their ruthless way of trying to claw back every penny to a broken state and an economy ruined by over-lending and shady deals. I cant remember if the BOI has had its debts transferred to NAMA.

Either way i hope it does not end in tragedy for the WT supporters and you successfully manage to stay alive.

I dont know but from what has been reported....
He took a £2million loan out.

He initially took out £725k that was paid to wakey to repay himself and another director back on director loans.

The other money £1.25 million from the loan we don't know how much wakey got from this. So potentially he had this too?

Then the other 800k that we were supposed to be paid he may have used this also.

Dependant on wakefield recieved, ateotd we havent recieved all £2.8mill so he's benefited somewhat.

Looks like they are;

The National Asset Management Agency Bill 2009, in its present format, covers the six financial institutions which are covered by the Irish government's deposit guarantee scheme. Those institutions are Bank of Ireland, Allied Irish Banks, Anglo Irish Bank, EBS, Irish Life and Permanent and Irish Nationwide. Other institutions, such as Ulster Bank, which are not covered may choose to join the scheme.[9]

The Minister for Finance, Brian Lenihan, said the banks would have to assume significant losses when the loans, largely made to property developers, are removed from their books. If such losses resulted in the banks needing more capital, then the government would insist on taking an equity stake in the lenders.[10] Economist Peter Bacon, who was appointed by the government to advise on solutions to the banking crisis, said the new agency had potential to bring a better economic solution to the banking crisis and was preferable to nationalising the banks.[11]

The assets will be purchased by using government bonds, which may lead to a significant increase in Ireland's gross national debt.[10]

The Bill provides that NAMA will be established on a statutory basis, as a separate body corporate with its own Board appointed by the Minister for Finance and with management services provided by the National Treasury Management Agency.[12] [13]

The Bill envisages that NAMA will arrange and supervise the identification and valuation of property-backed loans on the books of qualifying financial institutions in Ireland, but will delegate the purchase and management of these loans to a separately created Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV).[14]

Presumably, as we are not legally the owner (land Registry) we have little choice, it is up to us to make sure we recover all monies owed buy the purchaser (not gonna happen), however we have entered into a lease agreement so must pay the agreed lease (not gonna happen after we go into admin).
Baring in mind if we go into admin we will not be paying our dues, it is a bit rich that we cry when our dues are not paid to us.
Common denominator? Ted Richardson!!!!

Not laying blame nor excusing events, but we believe that the LE report may have some details wrong.

Our understanding is that £1.7m was paid the club, and that rather than any personal account being settled, by the money coming into the club it allowed personal guarantees to be relinquished.

There is no record on the account (to our knowledge) of anyone having loaned £700k to the club - but there was a massive overdraft to be covered and without the income individual guarantees would be at risk.

And again in English please?

We believe

I'm saying that we don't believe that any of that money was paid directly to any individual - but by paying off the bank the bank would release the personal guarantees which would put that person at risk!

There's nothing wrong with the English!