Re: Ownership and twists : Wed May 07, 2014 7:26 pm  

Moore has already stated,

"I am also extremely surprised by the current position of the RFL, given the fact that they have guided us and advised us on the majority of decisions made over the past five to six months. We were more than grateful of their assistance, as they have been integral in getting us to this stage.
"More frustratingly, this process has been amplified by the fact that administration could have been avoided."

Whitcut is saying Solly told Watt, Moore and Calvert not to pay OK and Moore is effectively saying that the RFL advised placing the club in administration. It's not precisely the same but it's certainly very close and the RFL ratified the change of ownership with some haste.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed May 07, 2014 7:28 pm  

M@islebugs wrote:

Moore has already stated,

"I am also extremely surprised by the current position of the RFL, given the fact that they have guided us and advised us on the majority of decisions made over the past five to six months. We were more than grateful of their assistance, as they have been integral in getting us to this stage.
"More frustratingly, this process has been amplified by the fact that administration could have been avoided."

Whitcut is saying Solly told Watt, Moore and Calvert not to pay OK and Moore is effectively saying that the RFL advised placing the club in administration. It's not precisely the same but it's certainly very close and the RFL ratified the change of ownership with some haste.

When the original administration took place I was rather surprised how quickly a new owner was found (BB2014) without the administrator announcing a deadline for bids from potential buyers. It all seemed to happen instantaneously.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed May 07, 2014 7:38 pm  

Hearing gets delayed and then a matter of hours later, Whitcut releases this statement.

Completely unconnected events, or one as a consequence of the other? Who can say...

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed May 07, 2014 7:55 pm  

Maybe worth a flying visit on here, to make an observation:

Reading that letter, and his unequivocal wordings, it would appear to me that Whitcu*t has either libelled Rimmer and Solly...or he has damned them.

If the former, one suspects he may be getting a solicitor's letter pretty soon?

If the latter, it could make Rimmer and Solly's positions at the RFL (and, by extension, the position of the RFL) untenable?

Depending on what (indeed, if any) of that is true and he can actually prove.

btw Davey, the Administrator explained in his report why he accepted the prepack - no funds to allow for a normal marketing exercise first, he said, so time was of the essence, seemingly. For anyone who might suppose "he would say that, wouldn't he?", not being party to the transaction I could not possibly comment.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed May 07, 2014 8:05 pm  

I know what your saying Adey but the writing was on the wall when the public found out that BB2014 had been created back in October/November. I know that the administration report indicated that there was only "X" amount in the bank, but I would imagine that there was a little more in the account of BB2014.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed May 07, 2014 8:27 pm  

debaser wrote:

Is this a different letter to the one Wakefield wrote?

Yes. This one wasn't in crayon.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed May 07, 2014 9:44 pm  

Doesn't anyone think that the poor standard of grammar, numerous typos and appalling document formatting suggest that this may not even be a genuine letter?

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed May 07, 2014 9:47 pm  

paulwalker71 wrote:

Doesn't anyone think that the poor standard of grammar, numerous typos and appalling document formatting suggest that this may not even be a genuine letter?

Yep. He can't even spell Ian Lenagan's name right.
And yet, it was posted from his twitter account, so it definitely came from him.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed May 07, 2014 9:59 pm  

paulwalker71 wrote:

Doesn't anyone think that the poor standard of grammar, numerous typos and appalling document formatting suggest that this may not even be a genuine letter?

It's the default letter template from MS Works 2000.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed May 07, 2014 10:04 pm  

The one thing that jumped out to me was the HMRC thing. How can you go from no debt to HMRC in "November last year" to a winding up petition from HMRC? The other references to "last year" does suggest he is talking about 2013. I'm pretty sure the HMRC don't act so quickly when the starting point in November was "no debt".

Which makes the rest of it sound iffy.

Although there has always been that whiff of the RFL working with the Bulls to go into admin to effect a change of ownership that had otherwise fallen into stalemate, which was why the RFL damning of the Bulls was a little bit of a surprise.