The charge was a very comprehensive one against all assets of OK Bulls
If those assets have been sold/transferred to BB2104 then I must assume it is with agreement of the charge holder.
Perhaps it has been satisfied (paid) or a replacement one taken out by BB2014.

Companies house records will soon tell us.

Its irrelevant now whether HMRC withdraw their application, since the appointment of administrators stays all legal debt recovery actions.

I assume that HMRC have not been paid because the directors were unable to make such payments while the ownership situation was unresolved. I'll not bore folk with the legals about fraudulent preferences etc unless someone needs help sleeping.

The administrator sells the assets - in this case clearly a prepack deal was in place ready to go when the button was pressed. The liabilities always stay with the old company. The administrator then uses the proceeds of sale of the assets to pay his own costs, then the creditors in ranking order.

(as an aside, the security company ranks ahead of other creditors because of its debenture, so will get paid first. Assuming that the assets were transferred for value, then there should be funds to do just that).

I would guess that the price Newco paid for the assets reflected a comitment to settle with the normal creditors - although that is pure speculation. The administrator has to be happy he got the best deal he could for the assets, but also has to balance that with his other responsibilities. Remember, the whole point of bringing in Administration as the default process for corporate insolvency (instead of receivership or liquidation) was to increase the number of failed businesses that could be saved as going concerns. This deal has cerrtainly achieved that objective 100%.

If I had a penny for everytime a Wakefield fan crowbarred the word "iconic" into a sentence I'd have 72p now.

It was a standard floating charge ("debenture"icon_wink.gif.

All charges and collection actions are stayed by administration.

The administrator then settles the creditors in ranking order. Floating charge holders first, after preferential claims (effectively, now crown preference is long gone, certain employee claims - irrelevant in this case as they will all have been TUPEd across to Newco).

The chargeholder's consent is not required to appoint administrators. A chargeholder can himself petion the High Court to appoint administrators, but that is a separate issue).

The charge will very definitely not transfer to Newco.

Just standing back from the details - how should I as a fan feel about this?

1) The newco has proper accounting expertise on the board, so I feel comfortable this time round the numbers will have been done properly
2) Clearly the RFL has been involved from the start and should understand the situation.
3) Perhaps more importantly for the future OK Bulls Ltd had so much baggage attached to it that no sensible investor/sponsor would have touched it, so newco hopefully will allow genuine investors/sponsors to come in ( and I think there are some) without worrying any investment would go straight into a black hole.

ignoring the "mining town" comment from the moron on the previous page...

I don't think a 4 point deduction would have been a big price to pay for the RFL to save their credibility on this, no matter what club it is.

your team on paper is 99% sure to avoid relegation by 4 points anyway.

I actually feel for you guys, as none of this is "your doing". It's YOUR money that has been mis-managed over the last 4/5 years, and I only hope that this 'decision' does not promote the club continuing in that vein.

Not only that, it'll be yourselves and your club that bare the brunt from naturally unhappy fans at other clubs that were given far less leniant treatment, or see this as favourtism, which on face value (possible explanations aside) it would appear to be.

Either way, all the best for 2014, except against us!!!

See you in a few weeks

Can we see you on sunday? We need your £15 entry fee!!

Do you think administration should always incur a points penalty? If all creditors, other than the previous owner, were paid would you still support a points deduction?
The RFL's role isn't to protect investors (there are assorted legal bodies to do that) but it does have a role in helping clubs so if this helps the sporting club survive how do you see it's credibility being damaged by this event?

I think it damages their credibility with the rest of Rugby League fans and those who look into our sport from outside. To what degree will vary. Fans of 'unfashionable' Clubs will see a bias in interests when they see their own Club struggle on without input or help. Whether this is right or wrong is up to the individuals and I stand neutral on the affair at the moment, but I can see where others would think otherwise.

12/11/13



You need to ask OK this, but I would expect him to be livid but largely impotent. He may well be concerned too because the administrator has a duty to investigate the conduct of all people who have been directors of an insolvent company (I think in the previous 12 months IIRC). And all creditors are invited, as a matter of routine, to notify the administrator of anything regarding the conduct of directors that he might want to be made aware of. That applies to Gerry too, btw, as well as the other 4 who were directors under OK (including Whitcu*t) and messrs Moore, Watt & Calvert.



You need to ask the RFL this. I would expect they would need to make some statement, regarding the transfer of the licence and licensing the new company to hold it. Presumably this would follow whatever meeting was required internally at which they would agree the necessary decisions.

If the statement is anything other than "licence transferred" I would be very surprised indeed. I HOPE it also states that no points deduction or other sanctions, because of comitment by the club to settle with the genuine creditors of the old company. On this, we will have to wait and see I guess?



Whether or not anything has already been agreed or has still to be agreed, if there is no loss to genuine creditors other than the former owner (and maybe any toxic creditors that arose on his watch) then there can be no justification for points deduction since nothing otherwise has changed. Just an owner losing an investment following unacceptable losses. Sh it happens.



Questions seem perfectly reasonable ones to me.

See my answer to this same point in the post immediately above.

If there is no loss to genuine creditors, there is no damage to credibility whatsoever. All that has changed is that an owner has had to write off his investment in a club that made losses and was worthless on paper. Happens all the time.

If there WAS to be loss to genuine creditors, then that would be a different proposition. Until or unless we learn otherwise, I am taking the club statement at face value and interpreting it as saying they will settle with genuine creditors.

It would be an absolute outrage if Bradford isn't deducted 6 points for going into Administration.

If Bradford get away with this it would be open season for any club to overspend and then go through these re-structuring shenanigans.

There no objective definition of "genuine"creditors and any other sort of creditor.

Part of the punishment of points deduction is because the fans of the club have had the benefit of having players play for them (and secure wins against other clubs who've played within the rules) who they couldn't in hindsight afford. The fans have to have that balance redressed by suffering the points deduction.

If the RFL let Bradford get away with this, the only reason will be the conflict of interest of owning the Odsal lease. After all the fantastic work by the RFL recently, it will be a big shame if they blot their copybook on this one.

Btw, I understand the concept of "pre-pack" but I really hope for his own sake that the Administrator got the best deal. If the upcoming sale of the assets (including a Super League licence) been advertised, would, for example, the Featherstone owner have bid more?

I'd expect the owner of ok bulls to continue the reported legal action to obtain the reported agreed consideration for the shares.

Rubbish.

If the only financial loss was to be to OK, then the substance of what has happened is that a club owner has had to write off his investment. Until or unless we learn otherwise, that is how I read today's announcement.

Justify your statement please?

And OK can pursue his action against Moore until the cows come home. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the the operating of the club.

In a nutshell, can somebody tell me if today's administration of OKBLTD means the club is now in administration, and is this and the change of ownership a good thing for the club and all those employed by the club?

I basically have no idea what is going on to be honest.

Rubbish indeed, and I would only add that if Wooden Stand thinks the SL licence is an "asset" that can be "sold" then he is more deluded than I thought.

No the club is not in admin. OKB is in admin. The club was sold by the administrator to the new company.

As Adey pointed out, yesterday the staff were employed by an insolvent company with a huge ownership wrangle interminably dragging on, and today they are employed by a new company with no such issues so clearly for them at least it is great news.

See FA's succinct and spot-on answer.



Neither do many of those who spout off on the T&A comments.

The crucial difference is, you acknowledge it and ask for guidance (same as the likes of me do to the likes of you on game-related matters), whereas they just try and ram their garbage down peoples' throats.

I think you might find it has IF the owner of OK Bulls wins AND a result is that a director and material shareholder in the new Bulls ends up bankrupted.

Bankrupted? As I understand it, the amount under dispute is nowhere near on that scale. And of course he is not the only director or shareholder.

In any case, if I was OK, I'd be concentrating now on making sure my own house was in order over the period of my directorship, for when the administrator comes calling.

Now, about that justification for your demands for points deduction that you were going to share with us...?

I'm now on the Virtual Terrace thread on this subject.

Make that nearly 30 bob now

See RHP is now a director too.



He'd not be doing that unless he was confident?

Might be a daft question, but who actually had the power to put the holding company into administration? If Omar Khan still had control of the shares, was it his decision?

Not a daft question at all.

A creditor, a debenture holder, the directors, or the company itself can make application to the High Court for the company to be placed in administration. I presume in this case it was the directors, which would be Calvert and Watt, who applied, but it need not have been.

The high Court places the company into administration, and the appointed administrator (a qualified insolvency practitioner) is also an officer of the court.

All the above except a creditor can do it outside of the court as well. I am assuming this will have been done through the High Court, but all these assumptions can only be verified once the relevant information is on public record.

Where's Mystic Mick in all this. It's not what he was preaching was going to happen before crimbo.