Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:38 am  

dddooommm wrote: The new board member is Danny Potticary. He will be the clubs new commercial director. More info: http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ls_mantra/ Aaaah bother. Danny Potticary. That's a let down. I misheard it as "an apothecary" and wrongly assumed we were now to be sponsored by Boots.

dddooommm wrote: The new board member is Danny Potticary. He will be the clubs new commercial director. More info: http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ls_mantra/ Aaaah bother. Danny Potticary. That's a let down. I misheard it as "an apothecary" and wrongly assumed we were now to be sponsored by Boots.

[Bullseye]

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:45 am  

Lets calm down. This is just a messageboard after all. Perspective please.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:46 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Aaaah bother. Danny Potticary. That's a let down. I misheard it as "an apothecary" and wrongly assumed we were now to be sponsored by Boots.

Practicing for the bench then FA??

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:24 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You are a lying, racist idiot. This is not an insult but an accusation. Or character assessment. Whichever you prefer. Why you would think, even for a second, that anyone - least of all me - would want to "revisit" your unspecified previous ramblings, not only here but "on the T&A" I can only guess. Not only will not a single person do so, but you are deluded in offering this ridiculous suggestion. Nobody takes you seriously. Your incoherent, wannabe EJ Thribb verbose style grates on even first glance, let alone on reading. Why would anyone unfortunate enough to encounter it once, ever choose to read it again?

1. Lying - I will just pick one out, "going to a money lender" - you KNOW that it was Whitcut not Khan who went to the money lender. You KNOW he did so to raise money TO BUY KHAN's SHARES. Yet you cynically lie, accusing Khan of borrowing the money, presumably hoping nobody would notice. Not only a lie - an idiotic one.

2. "should have stuck to making chappatis."
A slur with clear racist connotations - which you have got away with before so you don't have the defence that you didn't realise it can be taken that way. Indeed it seems clear you have deliberately regurgitated it. Racist.

3. Idiot:
a) OK was not (as everyone knows) doing "the accounting". He appointed a very poor choice to do that (Whitcut) and of course he is responsible for his poor choice (and has paid and will pay the price) but you cannot accuse Khan of doing what Whitcut did. But, of course, in your case, you feel able to do precisely that.
b) Words almost fail. You want him DEAD? What sort of a weirdo are you? First, I have always said I will always be grateful to OK for saving our club from disappearing, and that is what he did. Second, we know that, amongst other things:-
* he put in at the very least the £375,000 that the administrator has been able to document
* he also took out a £200,000 loan from the Council which he PERSONALLY GUARANTEED and is now liable for
* he also personally guaranteed pretty much the entire finances of the club to the RFL, including the payment of a further £100,000 that would (as at date of deal) have arisen in 2015.

It looks to me like his intervention has ruined both his finances and his health. But kept my club alive at a time when nobody else would.

In my (very) personal and frank opinion you are therefore a scumbag to write the things you do. Based not on insult, but an honest assessment of the things you have chosen to write. Now if you don't mind go talk to someone else, don't address any more comments directly at me as I have no interest in reading anything further from a person with your qualities, and your deeply unpleasant and IDIOTIC "hanging" comment was for me the last straw.

Very well said FA

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:04 pm  

It seems that Mr Khan and Mr Whitcut are not very happy with the administrator.... http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... k_/?ref=mr

It seems that Mr Khan and Mr Whitcut are not very happy with the administrator.... http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... k_/?ref=mr

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:40 pm  

Derwent wrote: It seems that Mr Khan and Mr Whitcut are not very happy with the administrator.... http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... k_/?ref=mr Though his language was very measured I don't think the administrator was very impressed with the efforts of Mr Khan and Mr Whitcut who seemed to think the Companies Act requirement for directors to keep proper books of account meant having a library ticket. Though the requirement is placed on all the directors not just Khan and Whitcut.

Derwent wrote: It seems that Mr Khan and Mr Whitcut are not very happy with the administrator.... http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... k_/?ref=mr Though his language was very measured I don't think the administrator was very impressed with the efforts of Mr Khan and Mr Whitcut who seemed to think the Companies Act requirement for directors to keep proper books of account meant having a library ticket. Though the requirement is placed on all the directors not just Khan and Whitcut.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:46 pm  

Though FA's other points re the bizarre outpourings of N&H are spot on, this section:
1. Lying - I will just pick one out, "going to a money lender" - you KNOW that it was Whitcut not Khan who went to the money lender. You KNOW he did so to raise money TO BUY KHAN's SHARES. Yet you cynically lie, accusing Khan of borrowing the money, presumably hoping nobody would notice. Not only a lie - an idiotic one.
The administrators report says explicitly the loan was an attempt to find cash for the wages. The administrator also indicates that Whitcut continued to take instructions from OK after he had taken to his bed?

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:01 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

Though FA's other points re the bizarre outpourings of N&H are spot on, this section:
1. Lying - I will just pick one out, "going to a money lender" - you KNOW that it was Whitcut not Khan who went to the money lender. You KNOW he did so to raise money TO BUY KHAN's SHARES. Yet you cynically lie, accusing Khan of borrowing the money, presumably hoping nobody would notice. Not only a lie - an idiotic one.
The administrators report says explicitly the loan was an attempt to find cash for the wages. The administrator also indicates that Whitcut continued to take instructions from OK after he had taken to his bed?

THANK YOU.

The deluded still live.
Just as Fa"s pedantic style grates clearly so my interpretation does.

Marc Green is a money lender charging 8 per cent per month with a corporate history of failure.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:04 pm  

Noble & Honest wrote:

THANK YOU.

The deluded still live.
Just as Fa"s pedantic style grates clearly so my interpretation does.

Marc Green is a money lender charging 8 per cent per month with a corporate history of failure.

The Report also points out despite having a heart attack OK was still trying (through Whitcut)to run the club and pay people when insolvent with no books or accounts to see how bad.

Moore and Co were on the right track.

Much more will come out

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:06 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

Though FA's other points re the bizarre outpourings of N&H are spot on, this section:
1. Lying - I will just pick one out, "going to a money lender" - you KNOW that it was Whitcut not Khan who went to the money lender. You KNOW he did so to raise money TO BUY KHAN's SHARES. Yet you cynically lie, accusing Khan of borrowing the money, presumably hoping nobody would notice. Not only a lie - an idiotic one.
The administrators report says explicitly the loan was an attempt to find cash for the wages. The administrator also indicates that Whitcut continued to take instructions from OK after he had taken to his bed?

The money did end up going on wages but the agreed price for OK's shares was 300K, and Whitcut borrowed £150K. The agreed sale was to Moore and Whitcut, and £300K divided by 2 happens to be £150K. Co-incidence? I don't think so. The RFL indicated that one reason the deal was said to have been less than fully acceptable was because the plan seemingly was to use the company's own funds to buy its own shares. I also recall that Moore, Calvert and Watt told the T&A that they had "found" massive holes in the club's finances including £180K (as it then was) for this particular loan. So the other co-purchaser, Moore claimed he knew nothing about it either.

I understand that the sale fell through following an intervention from the RFL, but that's another story. Whatever, it was Whitcut who gave the debenture. The sale did not complete and litigation (by OK against RW and MM) rapidly followed. It doesn't seem very likely to me that he was suing them but they were also they were also taking instructions from him!

However in fact OK had sold his shares (or so it was believed by all concerned at the time) and had nothing but a debt (as he agreed they could buy now, pay later). Why would somebody who had had to step down as the job was killing him, and who had completed a sale of his shares, be giving directions to the purchaser? If Whitcut had bought the shares, why would he TAKE directions from the previous owner? It makes no sense. Whitcut was not taking directions from Khan, Khan had left.

The strangest thing of all though must be the fact that Khan was the owner of OKBL and its figurehead; he was the shareholder; and he was the most substantial individual creditor. Yet to date, the I understand the administrator has not spoken to him. Is it just me, or is that strange? That is why whatever is in the report I take with a large pinch of salt.

A creditors meeting was not even going to be held according to the report but OK has insisted on one. That promises to be an interesting meeting.