Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:36 pm  

InTheStands wrote:

Nice to see you think your own club have no aspirations of SL

As a London Broncos fan of many years and a realist, I can see that we have assembled a squad for the Championship some 12 months early.
It's not about not having aspirations in regard to the top tier, it's simply a realism that with the current lunatic owning the club and the RFL happy to spend time buying iconic grounds, London won't be given the time and resources required to break into a new region/market.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:46 pm  

Really people are having a go at the new owner, before he is the new owner????

Classy!!

The whole Koukash thing you have to take with a pinch of salt. He's a great PR and self publicist. He know's what he's doing in term of grabbing a bit of the headlines here and there. I could put in a bid for the Bulls ( I did a few pages back) but it does not make it a real bid, even if I tweet that it's a real bid.

Yes Koukash has the money, but he is media savey too, since the end of the last season he has latched onto almost any RL story. Tomkins, SBW, Burgess, Bulls, Salary Cap, Sky deal, New league structure.

There is one thing consistent about him, he is a great sales man and knows how to get lots and lots of free publicity for Salford. The offer may have been real, but being the dead cert lowest offer, at least leaves it open to being another media payday for him.

As for this Green fellow, I'm not sure why people think he is only buying to recover his loan. The Bulls don't seem to have a pot of gold waiting for any owner. If he buys the club, he will not recover his money as he will have to spend money and be then in charge of a loss making business with a falling customer base. FA seems to think there are few if no salable assets. Why are people thinking he is in this just for money??? The only way he could make money is to re-sell at a higher price.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:02 am  

One big problem is that the Bulls are bound for the Championship, they are tied to Odsal and you can't run Odsal on the crowds we will get in the Championship. I don't know where the RFL get their funding but they should be asking questions about their investments and funding

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:46 am  

bewareshadows wrote:

... FA seems to think there are few if no salable assets. ...

When OK bought the same business, he paid 140k for the name/goodwill and 10k for the assets. That included 2k for chattel assets and £1,997 for stock.

I too am baffled as to how Green is "in it for the money".

If he does buy the club then he will pay real money to the administrator, and that will go in administrator's fees. Even if he then does get some of it back under his debenture, he will have a) made a substantial immediate loss and b) be saddled with the considerable expense of running the Bulls, as well as paying the legion of debts and other payments that the RFL seem to be according to some insisting upon.

If he doesn't buy it, then he need only sit back and await whatever he gets from the liquidation if there is one. It might be less, but he won't have had a penny outlay.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:58 am  

tigertot wrote:

Why? Because he raises too many uncomfortable issues, rather than a simplistic blame everyone else view? He might not be correct with everything he says, who knows, but it is certainly interesting.

Well said.
FA seems to think I post exclusively to this site.

I certainly believe this site offers more intelligent posts than many of the others.

Bile still comes through sadly with the "its everyone elses fault"attitude.

Fa is right about one or two things.
The Bulls assets have more worth in a couple of carrots.
Even the Coral Stand is RFL owned (or they believe so)(as did Guilfoyle when he sold it apparently to OK)

Not even the previous administraters to sell.
Apparently.
Though not press released.

A previous comment I offered did suggest the council loan was guaranteed on OK Bulls assets.
By debenture.
FA may wish to check Companies House records.
3 Mortgages have been charged to OK Bulls assets.
2 have been satisfied.
That's paid off.
Debentures they are.
The Council silence as rto the taxpayers security for that £200k loan is deafening.
FA is correct.
I assumned one of the charges registered with Companies House would be the council loan.
FA seems to be in the know that Ok personally guaranteed that loan.
As there is no indication I have seen that the Council loan has been paid back I will concede.

The debentures must have been for other loans needed for this financial basket case of a club/company.
Taken by who or when I have no idea without inspection of the statutory books.
Which I am told there ar"nt any.
In breach of the Companies Acts.
Onlt the council can confirm the true position.
Which at some point they will have to.
Pressure is on them to disclose the position.

My opinion of Ok et al is based on the knowledge that he knew how much he needed for a year to pay the wages that were contracted to November 2013 and some beyond that date.

He failed to provide enough throughout the 12 months which is why OK Bulls owed £1.5 million inside a year and sent him to his deathbed and Sutcliffe to silence.
Good man that.

And that he has a history going back with Whitcut of failed ventures.
With one following the other in and out.
The more discerning on here may wish to research "Lister Hotel" or "Lister Mansion Hotel" adding for google search "Omar Khan" or "Whitcut"
Its suprising how much is out there that would lift the lid off this mess.
"Fit and Proper"...what a joke

I take no pleasure in what I know or uncover.
I do get sick of all these posters trying to blame the RFL.

Always the victim its not our fault nonsense.
Its not the fans fault.
Its not my fault.
Its not the San Andreas fault.
So whose fault is it.
Its everyones fault.
Fans for deserting
Ok for not slashing costs for 2 years in the absence of £1.3 million sky hold back of distribution.
One thing I could agree with FA on.

Greggs should be invited to takeover.
Nigel has invested that much in that favourite Cameron institution that we are entitled to a bit back as Nigel has used your and my money.
Financial Analysts estimate Nigel contributed to 75 per cent of Greggs rising share value.
We want some of that.
If only as a sponsor.

I do not intend to continue this spat with FA.Adey let out in comment that he stands like a man mountain greek god.
He could crush me.
I feel some empathy to the man and recognize he is hurting more than most over the distressing situation.

I invite him to stand back.
There are 5 interested parties.

The Bulls will live.
The RFL will not allow them to die.
They are not completely stupid at Redhall.
They have just signed up to another 8(?)years with Sky.

Would not look good.

What is now difficult is "Whats for sale"

No Coral?
Legal Actions could be abounding everywhere.
Theres one good reason for possible delay.
All backs need covering.
I'm not turning my back on FA.
In case he crushed me before I had chance to bite his balls off.
I'm the bit part actor of Ronnie Corbett proportions.
Starring in "Rising Damp"

Tommorow will be just another day.
But the RFL will get the owner they want.
One prepared to fund the losses going forward.
And the rest.
The RFL dare not fail in that mission.
At least theres mor interest than 18 months ago.
The position is also a whole lot worse.
The Bank of RFL will soon be handing over.

Got there in the end.
But expect years to rebuild success.

Like the Prose style FA?
And deliberate spelling mistakes?

Yours in poetry

Ted Hughes (the third)(Son of Howard)

Watch that avatar go into demented rage mode.
Feeeeeeeeeeeeeeel the steam
xxx

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:47 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

When OK bought the same business, he paid 140k for the name/goodwill and 10k for the assets. That included 2k for chattel assets and £1,997 for stock.

I too am baffled as to how Green is "in it for the money".

If he does buy the club then he will pay real money to the administrator, and that will go in administrator's fees. Even if he then does get some of it back under his debenture, he will have a) made a substantial immediate loss and b) be saddled with the considerable expense of running the Bulls, as well as paying the legion of debts and other payments that the RFL seem to be according to some insisting upon.

If he doesn't buy it, then he need only sit back and await whatever he gets from the liquidation if there is one. It might be less, but he won't have had a penny outlay.

Wrong again!

OK paid £240k.
£100k was by arrangement deferred until 2015.
When he became ill it appears he "concluded" his purchase early, given that after 12 months was desperate to get out.
It would have proved difficult to "sell" to Whitcut /Moore before he had actually completed purchase though I would not have put it past him to try.
perhaps Greens loan was used to complete that purchase thereby removing 2 debentures/charges/mortgages and replacing with one for Green.
Though evidence is coming out it was Whitcut who did the deal with Green.Perhaps to raise his half of the £300k he and Moore agreed with Ok.
Wow that £2000 of Chattels and nonsense badwill certainly incurred some legal costs in securing all these loans.
Not a pot to pee in is the recurring nightmare of Bulls owners and potential owners.

Bulls sponsored by pay day loan firm and owners and potential owners stitching Bulls meagre assets up to attain ownership through payday loan lenders at Wonga rates.No one else would touch it.

A sort of pass the poisoned chalice parcel game where the last one to open the box gets the prize.
Relegation certainties
£1.5 million debt
No Coral Stand when they thought they had one
£1 million shortfall to make up to see September.
Bags of potential (though not seen in 8 years)
Potential claims from employees for personal injury brought about by failure to ensure protection for players (as there are not enough fit and well and capable)
Green will want his money back/
And as he seems to know Whitcut..............
God lets not go there eh

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:51 am  

Noble & Honest wrote:

Well said.
FA seems to think I post exclusively to this site.

I certainly believe this site offers more intelligent posts than many of the others.

Bile still comes through sadly with the "its everyone elses fault"attitude.

Fa is right about one or two things.
The Bulls assets have more worth in a couple of carrots.
Even the Coral Stand is RFL owned (or they believe so)(as did Guilfoyle when he sold it apparently to OK)

Not even the previous administraters to sell.
Apparently.
Though not press released.

A previous comment I offered did suggest the council loan was guaranteed on OK Bulls assets.
By debenture.
FA may wish to check Companies House records.
3 Mortgages have been charged to OK Bulls assets.
2 have been satisfied.
That's paid off.
Debentures they are.
The Council silence as rto the taxpayers security for that £200k loan is deafening.
FA is correct.
I assumned one of the charges registered with Companies House would be the council loan.
FA seems to be in the know that Ok personally guaranteed that loan.
As there is no indication I have seen that the Council loan has been paid back I will concede.

The debentures must have been for other loans needed for this financial basket case of a club/company.
Taken by who or when I have no idea without inspection of the statutory books.
Which I am told there ar"nt any.
In breach of the Companies Acts.
Onlt the council can confirm the true position.
Which at some point they will have to.
Pressure is on them to disclose the position.

My opinion of Ok et al is based on the knowledge that he knew how much he needed for a year to pay the wages that were contracted to November 2013 and some beyond that date.

He failed to provide enough throughout the 12 months which is why OK Bulls owed £1.5 million inside a year and sent him to his deathbed and Sutcliffe to silence.
Good man that.

And that he has a history going back with Whitcut of failed ventures.
With one following the other in and out.
The more discerning on here may wish to research "Lister Hotel" or "Lister Mansion Hotel" adding for google search "Omar Khan" or "Whitcut"
Its suprising how much is out there that would lift the lid off this mess.
"Fit and Proper"...what a joke

I take no pleasure in what I know or uncover.
I do get sick of all these posters trying to blame the RFL.

Always the victim its not our fault nonsense.
Its not the fans fault.
Its not my fault.
Its not the San Andreas fault.
So whose fault is it.
Its everyones fault.
Fans for deserting
Ok for not slashing costs for 2 years in the absence of £1.3 million sky hold back of distribution.
One thing I could agree with FA on.

Greggs should be invited to takeover.
Nigel has invested that much in that favourite Cameron institution that we are entitled to a bit back as Nigel has used your and my money.
Financial Analysts estimate Nigel contributed to 75 per cent of Greggs rising share value.
We want some of that.
If only as a sponsor.

I do not intend to continue this spat with FA.Adey let out in comment that he stands like a man mountain greek god.
He could crush me.
I feel some empathy to the man and recognize he is hurting more than most over the distressing situation.

I invite him to stand back.
There are 5 interested parties.

The Bulls will live.
The RFL will not allow them to die.
They are not completely stupid at Redhall.
They have just signed up to another 8(?)years with Sky.

Would not look good.

What is now difficult is "Whats for sale"

No Coral?
Legal Actions could be abounding everywhere.
Theres one good reason for possible delay.
All backs need covering.
I'm not turning my back on FA.
In case he crushed me before I had chance to bite his balls off.
I'm the bit part actor of Ronnie Corbett proportions.
Starring in "Rising Damp"

Tommorow will be just another day.
But the RFL will get the owner they want.
One prepared to fund the losses going forward.
And the rest.
The RFL dare not fail in that mission.
At least theres mor interest than 18 months ago.
The position is also a whole lot worse.
The Bank of RFL will soon be handing over.

Got there in the end.
But expect years to rebuild success.

Like the Prose style FA?
And deliberate spelling mistakes?

Yours in poetry

Ted Hughes (the third)(Son of Howard)

Watch that avatar go into demented rage mode.
Feeeeeeeeeeeeeeel the steam
xxx

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:08 am  

Noble & Honest wrote:

Wrong again!

OK paid £240k.

So, when in the Administrator's report it states:

... it is wrong. Fine. I will leave others to chose whether to believe the written report of the relevant administrator, or the numbers in your head.

Noble & Honest wrote:

£100k was by arrangement deferred until 2015.

Look man, please stop bullshitting. That is just plain wrong. What IS true is that IF the Bulls retained their SL status (and again I quote) "during the 2014-2015 season" then an ADDITIONAL £100K would have been payable.

If you want more facts, of the £150K, half (£75k) was deferred for 3 months, covered by a PG from OK personally.

Noble & Honest wrote:

When he became ill it appears he "concluded" his purchase early, given that after 12 months was desperate to get out.
It would have proved difficult to "sell" to Whitcut /Moore before he had actually completed purchase though I would not have put it past him to try.
perhaps Greens loan was used to complete that purchase thereby removing 2 debentures/charges/mortgages and replacing with one for Green.

Sorry, pure fantasy. OK had fully paid up by 5 February 2013. Another documented fact. (They are damned inconvenient, aren't they?)

Noble & Honest wrote:

Though evidence is coming out it was Whitcut who did the deal with Green.Perhaps to raise his half of the £300k he and Moore agreed with Ok.

It isn't "emerging" at all, this fact was well publicised on here, we've all known about it for yonks. How weird to learn something from here, and then months later claim it "is emerging". Where, exactly, did it emerge to you from? The recesses of your memory of what you read on here at the time it happened?

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:17 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

So, when in the Administrator's report it states:

... it is wrong. Fine. I will leave others to chose whether to believe the written report of the relevant administrator, or the numbers in your head.

Look man, please stop bullshitting. That is just plain wrong. What IS true is that IF the Bulls retained their SL status (and again I quote) "during the 2014-2015 season" then an ADDITIONAL £100K would have been payable.

If you want more facts, of the £150K, half (£75k) was deferred for 3 months, covered by a PG from OK personally.

Sorry, pure fantasy. OK had fully paid up by 5 February 2013. Another documented fact. (They are damned inconvenient, aren't they?)

It isn't "emerging" at all, this fact was well publicised on here, we've all known about it for yonks. How weird to learn something from here, and then months later claim it "is emerging". Where, exactly, did it emerge to you from? The recesses of your memory of what you read on here at the time it happened?

All the reporting in the Telegraph Argus at the time in September 2012 said £250000 price.
With a £25000 a month instalment arrangement.
Which they further reported months later was subject to dispute as Khan had failed to meet a payment that he and Sutcliffe argued was down to dispute as to certain legal responsibility for certain expenses re the last game of 2012 season and who should pay.

There was no mention in Hannah"s article of the £100000 due in 2015 being subject to them retaining super league status.
Remember the RFL stated all the bids had to be unconditional....no super league status guaranteed.

The fact that the license was subsequently granted should have guaranteed that payment of £100000 additional was due.

I seem to recall it was initially a probationary 12(?)month license that Sutcliffe and Khan then managed to secure it for the remainder of the licence period.(initially 3 year license granted just before iconic ground sold for debt)
As there was no relegation in the competition at that stage the only thing that would have prevented the additional £100000 been payable by Khan would have been if the Super League license had not been renewed for season 2015.
Membership would have been dependant on all other membership criteria been met I guess.

None of this was reported in detail by the Telegraph and Argus.
Just that Ok had paid £250000 on the terms stated.
Your reporting FA uncovers a different scenario to that reported by the press.
We cannot argue with Guilfoyles firms report.

FA 1 Noble Honest/'Telegraph Argus Nil.

The Telegraph Argus Ross Heppenstall through the latest schenanigans reported that Ok had paid £240000 for the club.
I noticed the £10000 difference in reporting and assumed OK had negotiated with Guilfoyle a discount based on who paid those expenses of the last game of 2012.
The use of the word "emerging" I apologise.It does not seem two minutes ago that all news of the schennanigans was "emerging"in relation to Whitcut.

What you are uncovering is that Ok who paid just £150000 for the club ran up £1,5 million in losses/debt in 12 months then tried to sell his shares for double what he paid when he bought it debt free.

Nice man eh.
Did not want to do anything that would harm the Bulls my ar*e.

And in that process with a Wonga loan shark appears (though not confirmed)to have stitched up the Bulls with his buddy Whitcut to another £100 grand on top of the £150K Green appears to have lent.

If Ok had introduced personal money from his property portfolio in August 2013 (was that bullshit too £900000 was mentioned)Companies House surely would be showing a charge...unless he was stupid and put it in as unsecured?

its fabrication he put that in.
lier I say.
You defend a lier?

As said in other post as of about 2 hours ago the register of charges of OK Bulls Limited shows 1 currently outstanding (presumably Green who appointed Wilson)and 2 discharged.

Do you know what the two debentures discharged were?

I am guessing Guilfoyle charged up with a debenture until Ok had settled his purchase price.To ensure he got his big fat fee to go with his big fat gut.
Penny for your thoughts.
Penny for the Bulls.
It is indeed true that the "emerging" news originated on here.
There is pretty much stone wall silence of the schenanigans officially of the dealings these past 6 months.

Its like a jig saw puzzle.
We are all gathering up little pieces of information from various reporting sources some of which are not exactly accurate (telegraph Argus which I quote from in some of the "facts" a source I am now sceptical of.)

The issues are twisting so often its difficult to keep up.
The moral may be don't believe everything you read in the newspapers (or what Brendon Guilfoyle tells you.And his firm P & A told me the Coral Stand was included in the chattels price and indeed they told a bidder in the 2012 process the same.)( I made sure I taped the conversation if your listening P & A Mr Brendan Guilfoyle)

It gets clearer than mud daily.

I doubt the £100000 will be paid now in 2015 even if Super league status for 2015 is retained.But what will Guilfoyle make of that.
Of course the clause would be there, as the riches from Super league sky divi are more than for Championship.
So if (by a miracle)Bulls scrape through this and are in SL next year do you think Guilfoyle will have covered himself that OK still pays it even though he will be long gone?
Complicated aint it.
Messy.
And horrid.
Shall we just roll over and die?
Keep bringing the information forward mutually and somewhere eventually we will all find the full truth.
I have to accept the source in my assumption of fact is in a lot of it the Telegraph argus.
Sloppy reporting has resulted in sloppy analysis.
For that I humbly apologise.
Unreservedly.
But I"ll still bite your balls off if you nut me.
Looks like neither of us can sleep through the suspense and drama of the poor Bulls plight.
And were just fans.
Wonder how the owners feeling or potential owners.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:57 am  

Morning everyone.