Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Sat Feb 01, 2014 8:03 pm  

Bulls4Champs wrote:

How has all this infighting come about? I thought Omar saved us. How did OKBLTD end up in so much debt and who to? Why was Omar in it to start with? Good will, make a quick dollar, or some other scheme? How have we gone from being safe to almost having no club again, or am I miles out here?

Its all in this and other threads mate. You just need to have a good read through.

I kept away from this and other forums for nearly 8 months. There were seveal reasons, but a major one was that I did not want to run the risk of expressing (increasing) financial concerns that might not help the situation.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Sat Feb 01, 2014 8:06 pm  

I thought a club that went into administration got a points deduction automatically just how many to be decided.

Unless the rules have changed ??

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Sat Feb 01, 2014 8:11 pm  

Would have thought the only reason to sell players to raise capital or to just get them off our books so we save money, looking at it we are only on a £400k shortfall which will be addressed going through the season so reason for us to sell players is not needed.

OK bulls was put into admin so BB2014 could take over the club as the agreement for the shares fell through, if the RFL met with the new board and it was ratified they must have known this could happen and been through the outcome why all of a sudden has it now turned out to be an issue?
Us going into admin like last time and admin for an hour our so are completely different if it was any other club I would not give a stuff, we didn't even appoint an administrator, as it was all set, if BB2014 had taken over then OK put into admin would they still all be moaning, no just desperate for the bulls to get a pt deduction as it then gives other teams an advantage, I hope we do get one 4pts shouldn't it then we win our opening games and are above wakey and London and whoever else and stay there, then it gives them option to winge that we should have been made to sell Our players.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Sat Feb 01, 2014 8:28 pm  

Punos wrote:

I thought a club that went into administration got a points deduction automatically just how many to be decided.

Unless the rules have changed ??

I think that is still the case. But the deduction COULD be zero points. The new board are clearly hoping to secure that result, but I guess theoir actions will determine if that is practicable and equitable.

The issue, though, is not whether a club goes into administration. That is one of a number of means of dealing with insolvency, but it is ALSO a valid and legitimate way of resolving major disputes e.g. between shareholders. There are other means of dealing with insolvency, including CVAs (where inevitably creditors are offered x% over y period), informal arrangements, and of course liquidation.

The issue the RFL rightly addresses is whether a club receives an unfair financial advantage by going through a process tthat involves loss to its creditors. Whatever that process might be. No loss, no advantage therefore no need for points deduction. It could be argued that 6 points is far too little a loss if you shaft ALL your creditors. My head agrees. My guess is that once the new league structure is in place, we may see a far higher points deduction or even automatic relegation - since they are clearly trying to stop relegation (or promotion, for that matter) resulting in oblivion. I would support that, then.

Then you have the shades of grey in between, if there is some loss but more limited. That seems to be on what the number of points deducted hinges, as far as I can see.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Sat Feb 01, 2014 8:59 pm  

We'll done for clearing up adey, in football don't they have a 24pt deduction for admin, but I do agree, the last time our creditors where left out to dry so 6 pts was fair, but as we are paying the creditors and this was maybe the on.y way for the new guys to take control, also agree if we do get deducted we should gets some money back for this year unfair us being done twice but as one is with the RFL and the other with SLE we are between a rock and a hard place.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:16 pm  

Questions for Adey (or anyone who understands the current situation)....

As all the players and assets have been transferred (purchased off the administrator) is it safe to assume that the new company didn't take any of the cash raised against the previous company (crazy suggestion but leads onto the next point)?

For example, all the season tickets purchased and sponsorship deals signed, the cash raised (presumably to help get through the season) has now gone to the administrator, leaving new company with a bank balance of '0'.

Would it have been possible for the directors to transfer any funds to the new company before calling in the administrator, leaving the new company with a healthy start, or is this the largest indication that the new owners/directors have put their hands into their pockets (as they need to pay wages etc.)

One last question... Who is the actual owner of the new company? OK owned OK Bulls as he was the main shareholder, does anyone know how the shares are split with the new owner(s)? There is a lot of talk regarding the new directors but is there a specific owner, if so, I suppose there is a chance that this owner could different to the directors listed.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:39 pm  

daveyz999 wrote:

Questions for Adey (or anyone who understands the current situation)....

As all the players and assets have been transferred (purchased off the administrator) is it safe to assume that the new company didn't take any of the cash raised against the previous company (crazy suggestion but leads onto the next point)?

All the assets will have been purchased (not simply "transferred") by BB2014 from the administrator of OKB. Price paid unknown, at least at present. Those assets include intangible assets (such as goodwill, maybe player contrcacts) as well as tangible assets (coral stand, equipment, stock). No bank balance will have been purchased - pointless anyway, why pay cash for cash, and the bank accounts are all frozen on appointment of administrator. ANy book debts will be collected by the administrator.

daveyz999 wrote:

For example, all the season tickets purchased and sponsorship deals signed, the cash raised (presumably to help get through the season) has now gone to the administrator, leaving new company with a bank balance of '0'.

Season tickets are actually a (big) liability of OKB. Almost certainly the lasgest single (non-OK) liability. BB2014 has confirmed it is taking on that liability, so that will doubtless have reflected in the net price paid for the assets.

Any sponsorship already paid to OKB has gone, forever. Any sponsorship invoiced by OKB but noit yet paid will be a book debt, collected by the administrator. If that sponsorship covered future periods, it is unlikely the sponsors would pay it or be obliged to.

Future sponsorship - BB2014 will need to enter into into new agreements with Provident and other sponsors. All the old agreements with OKB will be voided by the administration. I assume BB2014 will have made sure Provident et al are onside. If I was a sponsor, I would be MUCH happier now OK is gone and I am dealing with a professional team, to be honest.

daveyz999 wrote:

Would it have been possible for the directors to transfer any funds to the new company before calling in the administrator, leaving the new company with a healthy start, or is this the largest indication that the new owners/directors have put their hands into their pockets (as they need to pay wages etc.)

NOT from OKB (which anyway HAD no funds) - that would at best have been a "fraudulent preference", if there was any debt due, and at worse downright fraud/theft. Will not have happened. If it had (and it wiull not have), the administrator would pick it up and seek to recover it, AND we would be looking at the Plod egting involved.

BB2014 was incorporated in November, so it was an existing vehicle. If the owners of it put funds into it between then and now, that is a matter for them. As a minimum, they will have put funds in for the initial share capital - but that is always a modest sum (the share capital of my own company is only £100, for example).

daveyz999 wrote:

One last question... Who is the actual owner of the new company? OK owned OK Bulls as he was the main shareholder, does anyone know how the shares are split with the new owner(s)? There is a lot of talk regarding the new directors but is there a specific owner, if so, I suppose there is a chance that this owner could different to the directors listed.

BB2014 was owned by Moore, Calvert and Watt 1/3 each, last time I checked.

You do not have to own shares to be a director. RHP in his video says he is now a director of BB2014, as well as those three. Assuming he actually MEANS a "Director" - and not one of these confusing "associate director", "non-executive director", "director of janitorial services" or other descriptions that convey status but nothing more, he may or may not now have shares in BB2014. If he has, and bought shares off the other three, we will not know until the first Annual Return is filed.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:54 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Wooden Stand wrote:

Your "Major Creditor" is in fact the former owner of the club. He chose to lend the money to the company, not to buy shares. Although he did not disabuse anyone who assumed he did the latter. His company lost a load of money. He lost his investment. Sh it happens. Same result for him and for everyone else whichever method of "Investment" he had chosen - he loses his money regardless.

Adey - Have to say I dont agree with you here and cannot understand your logic to ignore the monies inserted by OK.

In effect he was a Director. He then paid in monies which were his or monies from his Company. I am not privy to the split.

So the Administrator will see outstanding monies to OK in his Loan account and also possibly a Trade Creditor for monies from his business.

Surely he cannot decide 'Oh Im not going to pay him - or pay them - hes honour bound to act correctly.

The saga could run and run and although my club should be OK (touch wood) I can see a huge revolt amongst such as Wakey, Cas, London fans etc.

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:54 pm  

Perfect, cheers for the response Adey.

This makes me think that the new owners are placing capital into the new company (out of their own pockets), ensuring we can get through the season. I feel far more confident in the new company, knowing the owners have more of an incentive for the business to work.

The fact that Moore has today said that the players are ring-fenced proves that the funds are there for them to finish 2014.

Happy days!

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Sat Feb 01, 2014 10:19 pm  

Early Bath wrote:

Adey - Have to say I dont agree with you here and cannot understand your logic to ignore the monies inserted by OK.

In effect he was a Director. He then paid in monies which were his or monies from his Company. I am not privy to the split.

So the Administrator will see outstanding monies to OK in his Loan account and also possibly a Trade Creditor for monies from his business.

Surely he cannot decide 'Oh Im not going to pay him - or pay them - hes honour bound to act correctly.

The saga could run and run and although my club should be OK (touch wood) I can see a huge revolt amongst such as Wakey, Cas, London fans etc.

I think we are confusing two separate points here.

You are totally correct in what you say, as far as the administrator is concerned. To him, a creditor is a creditor is a creditor. The only distiction is in pecking order.

Preferential creditors get paid first, but since these are nowdays usually limited to certain employee claims, and all the employees were TUPEd across to BB2014, there are unlikely to be any of those. Next come any debenture holders secured by floating charge. In this case, the moneylender. He looks certain to be paid, I'd say, out of the proceeds of the asset sale to BB2014 and any book debt collections, as well as any existing cash at bank. He will of course have known this, hence I am sure him taking the steps he did to realise his security.

Then in this case, it gets interesting. The rest are usually "unsecured creditors", and - if there is anything left after the Prefs and debenture holder/s have been paid, and of course the administrator (can't see this guy costing a fraction of the scandalous amount Gargoyle & co made, especialy given its a prepack) - then they get a dividend of x p in the pound, all treated equally.

Of course, if perchance a creditor has subordinated his debt behind the interests of other creditors (i.e. agreed by deed he does not get paid until all the other creditors have ben paid) then he ranks last anyway, and is invariably fekked. I raise this only because it is not uncommon, when a business is financed mainly by loans instead of equity (as OKB was) that lenders, key suppliers or other stakeholders/regulators require such debt to be subordinated. I do not know if such was the case here, but if it was then of course it shoots down mcuh of the inaccurate arguments that some people are putting up anywauy).

But, back to the unsecured creditors. It is quite possible, and not totally uncommon, for the new company to voluntarily agree to settle with some or all of the unsecured creditors. That is what BB2014 have said they intend to do, if I understand it correctly. In such cases, they can decide who to pay if they want, since it is voluntary. (if there ARE any specific rules here, I have not come across them professionally before but would welcome someone improving on my answer). So they could elect to settle with normal creditors, I presume including HMRC (in fact, it had BETTER be) but not OK, or for that matter any other unusual or non-rugby creditors.

I would presume the price BB2014 paid for the assets will have reflected any such intent, since by settling unsecured claims they reduce the amount that the administrator has to seek to settle, and thereby improve the dividend prospects of any creditors that remain in the old company.

If you want a recent precedent that I am familair with, go check out the administration of Brintons Carpets (Major, long-established carpet manufacturing group) not long ago. The bsuiness was sold in a prepack (as here) to a new vehicle (as here) owned by a US private equity group (no such luck...) that undertook to settle all the normal supplier claims but not the financing deb and any funnies. Thereby saving the business, causing no loss to suppliers, HMRC etc, maintaining the goodwill of suppliers and stakeholders, and ensuring the loss fell where it should have - on the owners, quasi-owners and financiers of the business. I am hopeful we will see similar here. Time will tell, obviously!

PS: IMO Early Bath's post here is just the sort of sensible, considered contribution to the debate that should be welcome and appreciated. Compare and contrast with the unhelpful, subjective hissy fits from the likes of Wooden Stand.