Well, depending on how true this is (and you'd think that Mr Green and his people would be interested in this as it seems to give legs to their challenge to the points deduction) it's certainly a different twist on the whole situation.

Understanding is a 3 edged sword. Their side, your side and the truth. But as the waters have been mudded and muddled so often I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth

For all the lies etc. that we seem to associate with Whitcut, I do get the feeling that there is a bit of truth in what he is saying.

For a number of months now many have thought that the whole 'administration' was a little questionable. I remember commenting at the time that the administration was a way of ousting the majority shareholder.

There are a few damning claims against certain members of the RFL, what would be interesting now would be for the 3 amigos (Watt, Calvert and Moore) confirmed if any of these allegations were true. They have an axe to grind with the RFL and this would ruffle a few feathers.

Wonder if the RFL will respond?

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.

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...

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.

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.

Yes. This one wasn't in crayon.

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.

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

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.

Well that smouldering bit of rumour has finally flamed! It will be interesting to see if Sod Hall pours oil on troubled waters or as they usually do add petrol!
Marc Green should be rubbing hands at this, whether its all or partly innuendo and allegations.
Its still a big distraction for the Players, lets hope Franny can keep them focused for the Stains match

As the statement is on RW's own Twitter account it should I think be treated as genuine but more so because of info it contains which is not generally known. A few observations.

First, I have pointed out before that, whatever the reason for the administration or who was involved, it is a fact that you cannot simultaneously put a company into administration and effect a pre-pack. Pre-packs can be set up reasonably quickly but not instantaneously. It is not chicken and egg, first the details and mechanics and fine print of the pre-pack are agreed upon and drawn up, then and only then is the administration and simultaneous sale effected.

However quickly it is done, it follows that the pre-pack outcome is of necessity known and drawn up BEFORE the step of administration is taken. In this case the administration was as a result of the debenture holder appointing an administrator so the buyers must have had contact with and set up the deal with the administrator before he became the administrator. Make of that what you will.

RW says the pre-pack / administration was to get rid of Omar's debt, and was put together, "with the RFL's full backing and knowledge", since Dec 2013.

The statement also provides confirmation of what I reported some months back I had been told, namely that the RFL were involved in the situation whereby the agreed price for OK's shares was not then paid (RW says "Rimmer has publicly said that Moore didn't pay OK.... What he didn't add was that Blake Solly advised Moore not to pay". I heard this from independent sources and this remark convinces me the statement is genuine as who else would know about that except someone very close to Moore and the deal?

I have previously said that a deal was done to sell OK's shares but then the purchasers declined to pay the agreed price. RW refers to the "agreed amount" and the deal with OK for time to pay, which OK agreed, and then confirms that RW's "fellow directors .... thought they could legally and I guess morally just not pay what was contractually owed". People have speculated that the reason the agreed price was not paid might be because suddenly the purchasers found out about hidden costs but RW confirms that "hidden costs which they knew nothing about are just stories, all of them had access to full documents and accounting systems". It would indeed be odd if having been around for months, they didn't.

It is interesting that RW contradicts what he says the administrator claimed at the creditors meeting, by alleging that not only was he (RW) not contacted by the administrator, but also the administrator has never responded to RW's "numerous emails". It may be recalled that I pointed out the administrator had not contacted OK either, which was why OK called for a creditors meeting which was not otherwise going to take place. I am surprised that we don't have a report from anyone as to what went on at that meeting.

One recurring factor in the numerous accounts and reports from several parties that have been at the heart of this farrago is a number of serious allegations about the conduct of the RFL, and certainly RW's statement adds to those, but he is not the first by any means. It might be interesting to see what happens about RW's statement, but I won't be surprised if the RFL will just largely ignore it or sweep it under the voluminous Red Hall carpets, which you could be forgiven for thinking must rise several feet in the air by now.

This sorry saga is more Machiavellian than anything the scriptwriters of Dallas ever came up with. We can only hope that we get out of the shower one morning and find out it was all in fact just one bad dream.

Looks like RW (whose account is followed by, inter alia, RHP) may intend to keep this thing going. He has now tweeted copy emails to the administrator to which no reply was, he claims, received: https://twitter.com/Rwhitcut/status/464 ... 60/photo/1

Looks like RW (whose account is followed by, inter alia, RHP) may intend to keep this thing going. He has now tweeted copy emails to the administrator to which no reply was, he claims, received: https://twitter.com/Rwhitcut/status/464 ... 60/photo/1

It reminds me more of crossroads or eldorado.

I think its more akin to that American classic comedy Soap and could run as long or longer!

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Looks like RW (whose account is followed by, inter alia, RHP) may intend to keep this thing going. He has now tweeted copy emails to the administrator to which no reply was, he claims, received: https://twitter.com/Rwhitcut/status/464 ... 60/photo/1'" Sorry FA, I'm not getting copies of emails, rather a slightly random 4 or 5 brief paras some of which appear to start in the middle of a sentence. Is this what he tweeted?

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Looks like RW (whose account is followed by, inter alia, RHP) may intend to keep this thing going. He has now tweeted copy emails to the administrator to which no reply was, he claims, received: https://twitter.com/Rwhitcut/status/464 ... 60/photo/1'" Sorry FA, I'm not getting copies of emails, rather a slightly random 4 or 5 brief paras some of which appear to start in the middle of a sentence. Is this what he tweeted?

Looks a bit like someone has been on a disaster management post event copy and paste course. Just hope our current owner was at arms length from the bickering former playmates. But on a positive side should be good news for some of our legal friends.

Yep, sposed to be clips from 3 different emails

, when the payment is due.

HMRC do have a "black book" - if you are late with payments ( and the Bulls were earlier in the year) you go on watch. This assumes the Bulls weren't already on watch due to being a new company formed after an administration which left HMRC as one of the main creditors.
So in this case the November payroll deductions would be due in mid December, and HMRC would have moved very quickly to enforce payment soon after. So yes you could be up to date at the end of November but be facing a winding up order before the end of the year.

Must say Whitcu*t must be pretty sure of himself to be alleging all this. Either he can prove it or he'll come unstuck.

There are a few obvious contradictions with what others have said. I wonder what exists in writing?

I think we can say with some confidence that everyone involved is pretty sure of themselves.

You sound pretty sure of yourself.