Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:12 pm  

Bullpower2012 wrote:

Very well said FA

The administrater to date has ascertained what amounts went in and out of the bank from OK.
There has been no Cash Flow Statement (previously called Statement Source Application of Funds).
Cash reconciliations have not even started and with such records as kept will be an enormous task.
Whitcut and Khan have been associated consistently together with failed ventures.

They have worked together for many years.

Whitcut cannot have had responsibility for accounts.
In every other company he has been a director of none were ever filed.

Frightening that you can stick up for him/them with a serial insolvency history.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:17 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

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.

Correct.Including Sutcliffe Greenwood Doshi and Rias

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:20 pm  

Noble & Honest wrote:

The Report also points out despite having a heart attack OK was still trying (through Whitcut)to run the club

But it is not correct and as I have just said the administrator has not got Khan's account so this is therefore information from sources other than Khan.

Can you advance any plausible reason why having sold the club, Khan would still be running it, or being allowed to?

Noble & Honest wrote:

The administrater to date has ascertained what amounts went in and out of the bank from OK.

But when the company first started to operate, it did not HAVE a bank account. Khan used his existing business accounts. How much was spent from those, running the business?

Noble & Honest wrote:

Much more will come out

Oh yes, on that at least we can agree.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:06 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

But it is not correct and as I have just said the administrator has not got Khan's account so this is therefore information from sources other than Khan.

Can you advance any plausible reason why having sold the club, Khan would still be running it, or being allowed to?

But when the company first started to operate, it did not HAVE a bank account. Khan used his existing business accounts. How much was spent from those, running the business?

Oh yes, on that at least we can agree.

"plausible reason"?

Perhaps the fact he claims to be owed £1000059.And whilst he thought he had a deal with Whitcut and Moore it was not happening.
May have resigned as a director but still owned OK Bulls Limited.Still does.

Thought you did not listen to any of my alleged ramblings?

As I have said there is a serial history of insolvency in many other dealings together Whitcut and Ok have had.
The report also says Ok Bulls Limited could not secure an overdraft.For a man with such a huge personal property portfolio to secure do you not find that strange.
I have had the benefit of seeing other documentation given to prospective buyers.The WHOLE truth may come out but most certainly should come out.

People who run companies like this without proper records to enable up to date financial positions to be ascertained, often do it so there is no proper conclusive audit trail to support the companies transactions.
They bank on the fact that no one will have the funding to seriously investigate irregularities.

All directors at this stage are accountable for their conduct in the shambles.
You and me know who the main players were.
Which is why Sutcliffe and Greenwood were so stupid to take directorships last April.
I do not for one minute think Sutcliffe is bent.
Stupid to be taken in by 2 of his Labour supporters over many years.
Despite there been no money Robbie was set on 2 months before going cap in hand to a "Wonga" money lender at considerable salary as were numerous other back room appointments including a psychiatrist and Head Of Medical Services.
The pychiatrists appointment is understandable.
Given this report and others I have seen.
We can only hope Marc Greens history of some corporate failures is not a sign of more to come.
He is clearly a reluctant owner owed £150k or £180k whichever report you read,that at 8 per cent a month quickly became £250k.
Reminds me of some of the PFI deals.
Lets hope he does not buy an Isteyn Harris at those rates.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:23 pm  

Noble & Honest wrote:

"plausible reason"?

Perhaps the fact he claims to be owed £1000059.And whilst he thought he had a deal with Whitcut and Moore it was not happening.
May have resigned as a director but still owned OK Bulls Limited.Still does.

Thought you did not listen to any of my alleged ramblings?

As I have said there is a serial history of insolvency in many other dealings together Whitcut and Ok have had.
The report also says Ok Bulls Limited could not secure an overdraft.For a man with such a huge personal property portfolio to secure do you not find that strange.
I have had the benefit of seeing other documentation given to prospective buyers.The WHOLE truth may come out but most certainly should come out.

People who run companies like this without proper records to enable up to date financial positions to be ascertained, often do it so there is no proper conclusive audit trail to support the companies transactions.
They bank on the fact that no one will have the funding to seriously investigate irregularities.

All directors at this stage are accountable for their conduct in the shambles.
You and me know who the main players were.
Which is why Sutcliffe and Greenwood were so stupid to take directorships last April.
I do not for one minute think Sutcliffe is bent.
Stupid to be taken in by 2 of his Labour supporters over many years.
Despite there been no money Robbie was set on 2 months before going cap in hand to a "Wonga" money lender at considerable salary as were numerous other back room appointments including a psychiatrist and Head Of Medical Services.
The pychiatrists appointment is understandable.
Given this report and others I have seen.
We can only hope Marc Greens history of some corporate failures is not a sign of more to come.
He is clearly a reluctant owner owed £150k or £180k whichever report you read,that at 8 per cent a month quickly became £250k.
Reminds me of some of the PFI deals.
Lets hope he does not buy an Isteyn Harris at those rates.

Re your suggestion initially the business was operated through Ok"s other business accounts.

That also appears to have been the case more recently with Moore and Calverts firms bank accounts/pay portals been utilised.

All that would be picked up in a Cssh Flow Statement ( statement of Source and Application of Funds Statement to the older generation).

Equally more could have been taken out than was put in this way.The administraters job (and ultimately liquidaters)will be clear as mud.
Don't know who would fund an investigation when there is no money left.

Guilfoyles costs were over quarter million.
he had to accept what he got from OK less incidental expenses of his last game in charge.
So his liquidation review allowed all the past miscreants not to be properly investigated.

Perhaps were all better off coming back as serial white collar fraudsters.
Seems so easy to get away with it eh

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:33 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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.

The Administrator's Report is a formal document filed for public view at Companies House, one of the few documents formally published re this sorry saga - so not sure why you take it "with a pinch of salt"

Given OK purchased a company which had just gone bust any sensible business man, never mind the requirements of the Companies Act - would have made sure he had accurate accounts so he knew how the new venture was performing and that the cash flow was under control. Whatever else was going on this failure alone was quite staggeringly reckless - and I suspect this would colour Mr Wilson's view of the people involved.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:44 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

The Administrator's Report is a formal document filed for public view at Companies House, one of the few documents formally published re this sorry saga - so not sure why you take it "with a pinch of salt"

Did the administrator somehow have inherent knowledge in his brain of what had gone on, or has he got psychic abilities? I suggest probably not. Therefore as he has not taken evidence from the main protagonist in the failed company I will take his findings with a pinch of salt and continue to wonder why he did not speak to OK.

Another reason is that the report simply explains that in mid-January 2014 HMRC presented a winding up petition and a decision was taken that the debenture holder was not able to let a liquidation continue and so appointed the administrator. However to put some flesh which the report omits from those bones, immediately following the administrator's appointment, he sold the club in a pre-pack, albeit some form of conditional one. Pre-packs take some setting up so I am interested in when it was first set up, by whom, and why the report doesn't mention the pre-pack. It says that "the only interested party leading up to the Administration was the existing board who formed a new company (BB2014)". However you wouldn't know from that, that the administrator was appointed and the prepack went through both on 31 January 2014, but BB2014 had in fact been formed months earlier, in fact on 12 November 2013. I am curious as to why? That date is long before the HMRC's petition.

Northernrelic wrote:

Given OK purchased a company which had just gone bust

But he didn't. He started a new company - OKB - not the old company Bradford Bulls Holdings which was eventually put into liquidation. He did agree to the new company being hamstrung by the distribution penalty.

Northernrelic wrote:

any sensible business man, never mind the requirements of the Companies Act - would have made sure he had accurate accounts so he knew how the new venture was performing and that the cash flow was under control. Whatever else was going on this failure alone was quite staggeringly reckless - and I suspect this would colour Mr Wilson's view of the people involved.

On any view the financial (mis)management turned out to be catastrophic, but if you wanted to understand what happened, why wouldn't you ask the owner of the company?

And with regard to monthly cash flow accounts - if you were the RFL and weren't getting them, or they didn't add up, but you did nothing, would you also be staggeringly reckless?

If the administrator's figures are right, and the company went bust owing over £1.1m but that includes £375k due to OK, that doesn't tell you what the rest of the debt was at the date OK sold his shares. I suggest it will obviously have been less. The distribution shortfall was clearly a key problem as they clearly did not replace that money with other funding and it is no excuse, but it may have been predictable as may be the case that had the last minute distribution fine not been levied, and had the club instead had normal distribution funding, OKB would very probably not have gone bust when it did.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:04 pm  

The report from the administrator is woefully deficient.

As FA says there is nothing mentioned about the prepack sale, although I do know that a partial disclosure was included with the initial circular that went to creditors. I say partial as it wasn't compliant with information required by SIP 16 which sets out information creditors should be provided with when there is a prepack sale. This should have been copied in the report, but it wasn't.

It comes as no surprise that OK should want a meeting of creditors as the report slates him. Will be a very interesting meeting I'm sure.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:08 pm  

So who is lying? I can't be bothered trying to work it out.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:33 pm  

Noble & Honest wrote:

Whitcut and Khan have been associated consistently together with failed ventures.

If only someone could have had the foresight to see that whitcut had form as a multiple-failed publican!