OK. I was a bit out on some of the points - like at the time I assumed that the new Debenture was in favour of OK, not the "security company". Had I paid my £1 and found that out beforehand, the scenario I outlined would have been much closer. But I think the bones of the situation - quarantining the club from the toxic debt - is there? "Frank Whitcombe" certainly saw it similar.

If the only creditor not paid proves to be OK, well that's tough on OK but fine by me. Had he put his money in in the form of shares (as most folk assumed he had, and he did nothing to disabuse anyone of that misconception) then he'd have been lucky to have received a cent back anyway. So its the same result - "owner writes investment off after huge losses shocker" - and no reason for anyone other than OK to get on their high horse about it.

If there are other toxic creditors - and we know of at least one, and I suspect there will be other strange ones that crawled out of the woodwork after Whitcu*t went - and THEY don;t get paid in full, well given the circumstances I kikewise can't see why there should be any complaints from anyone.

If the normal trade creditors, and of course HMRC, were not to be engaged with and settlement with them made by the new company, then I would (I hope it never becomes "Will"icon_wink.gif have a serious problem. As I think would many others and certainly the RFL. Points deduction would seem inevitable in such circumstances. It is sounding like maybe that issue is indeed being addressed, but we need to await updates I guess.

What seems a certainty is that many folk, who understandably do not have a knowledge of how these things work, will inevitably jump to the expected conclusions.

OK. I was a bit out on some of the points - like at the time I assumed that the new Debenture was in favour of OK, not the "security company". Had I paid my £1 and found that out beforehand, the scenario I outlined would have been much closer. But I think the bones of the situation - quarantining the club from the toxic debt - is there? "Frank Whitcombe" certainly saw it similar.

If the only creditor not paid proves to be OK, well that's tough on OK but fine by me. Had he put his money in in the form of shares (as most folk assumed he had, and he did nothing to disabuse anyone of that misconception) then he'd have been lucky to have received a cent back anyway. So its the same result - "owner writes investment off after huge losses shocker" - and no reason for anyone other than OK to get on their high horse about it.

If there are other toxic creditors - and we know of at least one, and I suspect there will be other strange ones that crawled out of the woodwork after Whitcu*t went - and THEY don;t get paid in full, well given the circumstances I kikewise can't see why there should be any complaints from anyone.

If the normal trade creditors, and of course HMRC, were not to be engaged with and settlement with them made by the new company, then I would (I hope it never becomes "Will"icon_wink.gif have a serious problem. As I think would many others and certainly the RFL. Points deduction would seem inevitable in such circumstances. It is sounding like maybe that issue is indeed being addressed, but we need to await updates I guess.

What seems a certainty is that many folk, who understandably do not have a knowledge of how these things work, will inevitably jump to the expected conclusions.