Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:03 pm  

Nothus wrote:

Well it's not quite that straightforward. You need to remember that the RFL lent us £700,000 on the sly without telling the other clubs.
We then failed to make a single repayment over the course of the next 12 months (I think).
So then Peter Hood had his brainwave to sell the lease to Odsal to the RFL, and they proceeded to make up some BS story about predators trying to buy Odsal to cover it all up.

We were punished for this debacle in addition to admin. Some people on here conveniently leave this part out in their complaints over our treatment.

We were punished by the other party to the debacle. Or, more accurately, successive owners / prospective owners who had nothing to do with the debacle are being punished for the debacle by the other party to the debacle.

Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:07 pm  

Nothus wrote:

Where has this 'rfl didn't sanction the takeover' come from?
All parties who made bids for the club passed the rfl's fit and proper persons test. That is as far the rfl's involvement goes.

Mark Moore and co withdrew their offer to buy the club, it wasn't a case of the rfl blocking it.

They just threw the toys out of the pram when the points deduction was announced. Whether they were justified in doing that or not is open to debate.

You may be right but if you are it means that the RFL were prepared to accept as owners (who had passed the fit and proper persons test) a group whose proposals were in their view completely untenable. This view of the bid was made abundantly clear in the Rimmer press release, supplemented by his interview on Boots n All.

Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:15 pm  

Bullnorthern wrote:

You may be right but if you are it means that the RFL were prepared to accept as owners (who had passed the fit and proper persons test) a group whose proposals were in their view completely untenable. This view of the bid was made abundantly clear in the Rimmer press release, supplemented by his interview on Boots n All.

Indeed. Who knows, maybe if Moore and co had stayed, the RFL might not have approved it anyway. But we'll never know now.
Rimmer's retort certainly was the complete opposite to what the rfl had been saying about our situation up until this point. They specifically highlighted Calvert as somebody who they felt confident in taking the club forward.

In all honesty I have no idea who to believe in all this. I suspect both parties may be 'fabricating the truth' to save face, and it's the innocent ones such as staff, players and fans who feel the brunt of it.

Let's just hope the supposed interested parties are still interested after this weekend.

Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:29 pm  

Nothus wrote:

Where has this 'rfl didn't sanction the takeover' come from?
All parties who made bids for the club passed the rfl's fit and proper persons test. That is as far the rfl's involvement goes.

Mark Moore and co withdrew their offer to buy the club, it wasn't a case of the rfl blocking it.

They just threw the toys out of the pram when the points deduction was announced. Whether they were justified in doing that or not is open to debate.

Good point, I let emotion get the better of me in terms of facts! But there is a big disconnect between administrator and RFL - Administrator accepts bid as best, so assume they demonstrated they have the cash, RFL say they haven't. Where does the truth lie?

[Pumpetypump]

Re: The two administrators : Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:54 pm  

daveyz999 wrote:

It does frustrate me a little that the administrator is getting so much flak. He's not interested in running a successful business, he just wants to recoup money for his creditors. .

I'm entirely ignorant so please be gentle but is his function not to simultaneously pay creditors AND seek to enable a successor company to proceed?

Re: The two administrators : Sun Mar 02, 2014 12:30 am  

Pumpetypump wrote:

I'm entirely ignorant so please be gentle but is his function not to simultaneously pay creditors AND seek to enable a successor company to proceed?

Given that there are a number of interested parties (apparently), and the administrator would have had a glimpse of their bids by now, this maybe a way of ensuring he gets paid, alternatively, Scruton's departure may now make the club a better proposition to buyers due to the reduced outgoings.

Whomever comes forward to save the club will have to start planning for life in SL2. We may be able to save a bit of cash this year to give the new owners a better opportunity to build for next year.

For all we know, the administrator may have told the bidders that he was in the process of selling some assets before it went through, Willey appeared to already know yesterday when the rumors began, judging some of her facebook posts

Re: Ownership and twists : Sun Mar 02, 2014 2:56 am  

Mr K it would seem still owns 99% of OK Bulls Ltd (in Administration).

Anybody know with any authority who's the current DIRECTOR(S) of OK Bulls Ltd?

Re: Ownership and twists : Sun Mar 02, 2014 3:28 am  

Wooden Stand wrote:

Mr K it would seem still owns 99% of OK Bulls Ltd (in Administration).

Anybody know with any authority who's the current DIRECTOR(S) of OK Bulls Ltd?

Well, I for one don't know, but from what I remember, nobody is. I don't think it would matter since I can't imagine any scenario where the administrator saved it as a going concern to hand back to the directors, so it will either be sold or, if it would be better for creditors, liquidated.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:19 am  

Read some interesting comments on another site that news may break in the RL Papers on Monday, regarding the Bulls saga, that is likely to send shock waves through the game. Shock waves which may lead to resignations at Red Hall. We shall see.

Re: The two administrators : Sun Mar 02, 2014 7:21 am  

Pumpetypump wrote:

I'm entirely ignorant so please be gentle but is his function not to simultaneously pay creditors AND seek to enable a successor company to proceed?

I would guess that is exactly what he is doing. Get the wage bill down to a figure that is equal to the amount of income currently available to him (whatever that figure may be ??), at which point I am sure there is a buyer lined up who will then come in and effectively start from scratch.

Hopefully this will save the club, but will certainly leave a lot of building back up to be done.

as has been said already its the timing of all this which could not have been worse.