Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:24 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

"why would he WANT any more involvement" Depending on whose figures you believed OK had between 450,000 and 1,100,000 reasons to be involved!

This really doesn't follow, though, does it? If MM and RW had actually paid for the shares, then they would have bought the shop, and that would have been that.

You may choose to think that had MM & RW bought the company, they would for some reason still have taken directions on how to run it from the seller, but I don't think that is remotely believable.

And if OK really wanted "involvement" and to run the company, it would be odd that he chose to walk out, and chose to sell his entire shareholding, wouldn't it? He already HAD involvement. These suggestions make no sense at all to me. If anyone can put forward a scenario involving the known facts that would make sense, I'll happily consider it.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:34 pm  

Noble & Honest wrote:

Well spotted xx

You're blowing kisses now?

Noble & Honest wrote:

If I had a million tied up in a failing business that could be turned around I would want someone in there watching out for things.

You are rambling. Your points amount to the business being a basket case, and Whitcut and Khan not being fit to run a whelk stall, thus having ruined the club. Fair summary?

But now suddenly it was a "business that could be turned around"? Was it? Based on what?

And while you would want "someone" in there "watching out for things", given the state of the books, and if you really thought these things, are you seriously telling me that that someone you would choose would be Whitcut? Seriously? As opposed to him being the last person?

Why wouldn't you, for example, instead of walking away, take over yourself? You can watch out for things better that way> Or why wouldn't you, if you were too ill to remain, finally appoint someone at least at capable whelk retail level?

Noble & Honest wrote:

FA seems to have really liked Ok.

In this discussion personalities are surely completely irrelevant? At any rate, OK saved teh club, and all i have said is I will always be grateful to him for that.

Noble & Honest wrote:

Ok and Whitcut have been through all this before with Lister Hotel.
They appear joined at the hip.

They do? They are certainly joined in civil proceedings where OK is the claimant and Whitcut is a defendant. Do you think that counts?

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 4:59 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

This really doesn't follow, though, does it? If MM and RW had actually paid for the shares, then they would have bought the shop, and that would have been that.

You may choose to think that had MM & RW bought the company, they would for some reason still have taken directions on how to run it from the seller, but I don't think that is remotely believable.

And if OK really wanted "involvement" and to run the company, it would be odd that he chose to walk out, and chose to sell his entire shareholding, wouldn't it? He already HAD involvement. These suggestions make no sense at all to me. If anyone can put forward a scenario involving the known facts that would make sense, I'll happily consider it.

You are asking for sensible suggestions for the actions of the various actors in this sorry tragedy - this implies they understood the facts and their implications and would then act with common sense. When the magnitude of the problems started to become apparent OK decided (sensibly?) to staunch his personal cash haemorrhage, but probably harboured some distant hope that under new - but connected - ownership that the creditors, with him being the largest - would get at least some of their money back. The event which would crystallise his loss would be for the OKBulls to pass into administration which is how things finally turned out.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:10 pm  

Can't see how the Appeals Panel can possibly give any points back. Claiming that the club was financially soundly run in 2013 but some "force majeure" I.e. An act of god, like an earthquake or something caused the administration, is frankly laughable.

[Bullseye]

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:26 pm  

Wooden Stand wrote:

Can't see how the Appeals Panel can possibly give any points back. Claiming that the club was financially soundly run in 2013 but some "force majeure" I.e. An act of god, like an earthquake or something caused the administration, is frankly laughable.

You may be right but I'm keeping my powder dry. Let's see what happens. I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of points come back. Then again I'd even less surprised if there was no change.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:38 pm  

Anyone see what they said on Boots n All tonight?

Apparently the Wakefield chairman said he would quit if we were given our points back.

Someones feeling a tad nervous!

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:45 pm  

daveyz999 wrote:

Anyone see what they said on Boots n All tonight?

Apparently the Wakefield chairman said he would quit if we were given our points back.

Someones feeling a tad nervous!

And how many points did they get deducted? Perhaps someone should remind him...

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:20 pm  

daveyz999 wrote: Apparently the Wakefield chairman said he would quit if we were given our points back. http://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... it-warning

daveyz999 wrote: Apparently the Wakefield chairman said he would quit if we were given our points back. http://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-leagu ... it-warning

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:27 pm  

paulwalker71 wrote:

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-league/news/article/480/9268536/carter-makes-quit-warning

Slight bit of misrepresentation in there saying we only lost scruton and sammut as a result of cash problems. Seem to remember Carvell, winterstein, Bateman and l'estrange also leaving during cost cutting period after OK walked away too.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:34 pm  

Poor form from Mr Carter. I think he'd be better off waiting until the appeal is actually heard. Unless he has other motives?

I think he must be spending too much time on the Wakefield forum, concentrate on your own club Mr Carter.