I supported Omar. Was I wrong? Don't know yet it'll all come out in the wash.

I'll support the new lot too though because it's what I have to do.

Who cares whether I'm right or not and who cares whether you are?

You obviously but does anyone else care.

What I will say though is I won't be eating at Omar khan's restaurants any time soon.

So Omar did put money in then? And he wants it back? Seems fair enough.

So you think the new board are on the wrong now? I can't keep up with your stance from one day to the next.

Fair comment Mr M - but you'll never beat the knee-jerkers.

Is this the new politically correct name for ......s??

I thought mystic Eddie was anti Omar and liked the new board?

Confused

Do you even know what you write any more?

It is reported that a statutory demand has been served to require repayment of money to OK. It is said he pu £1m into the club. Now, making allowances for sloppy reporting possibilities, it still states clearly that the Stat demand is by OK. Not OK Bulls. (Which is the current trading company and obviously couldn't serve a stat demand on itself) It also states that some sort of a deal was done when OK left and RW remained as to repayments.

If it is true that OK did put a large amount of money in and there was agreement as to repayment, then it would be an odd thing for the sort of shyster and conman you claim him to be to have done, wouldn't it? Of course, it is possible that a statutory demand is being issued over a mythical amount and in fact based on a pure lie and nothing was put in at all. That would be odd. Do you have any firm information in your detailed annals and documentation?

If, theoretically, he was owed a lot of money and if, theoretically, somebody was reneging on an agreement as to repayment, what wouldyou say would need defending about trying to seek repayment by law?

I don't therefore see where this question of "defending" arises. Either the above is the case, or it is not. Time will doubtless tell.

Ross Heppenstall @rosshtanda
Just spoken to Omar's representatives, who stressed he is NOT taking legal action against the Bulls but two individuals M Moore & R Whitcut

V interesting. Suggests Watt and Calvert have paid??

Interesting relationship between Omar and Ryan these days then!

So it all suggests that Omar did actually put money in then. Any comment ME?

Agreement between OK and whitcut/Moore was before watt and Calvert came on board wasn't it?. Wonder what happens if Moore leaves club too. Does it then become a personal debt owed by whitcut/Moore to OK and no longer an issue for club.

Do we have any idea how Omar put the money in becuase surely he would have to be the one to give the goahead (which seems unethical if he knew he was going to go)? Did he have a meeting with his reflection where he agreed the interest rate, repayment terms and penalties for non\late payment with his stooge Whitcut there to make it seem above board or were others involved?

That is the clear suggestion. Does Whitcut still own the shares he bought (and hasn't paid for)?

Correct.

Some of the ill-judged, badly timed and poorly executed business decisions have played a huge part, in landing us in the perilous mess we currently find ourselves in.

The wording looked quite clear to me - OK proceding against individuals not the club? That would seem to suggest relating to the transfer of ownership rather than relating to monies owned by the club? And that there are no grounds for anyone to suggest OK is trying to bring the club down, as I have seen said elsewhere. Given he is owed money by the club - regardless of amount - that would make no sense?

There will always be two sides to any argument. Moore et al must feel very confident of their position, after the very public vilification of OK and Whitcut at the Forum and in the statements released. It was inevitable that the targets would respond.

I fear we could see a public battle for the hearts and minds of the supporters, though - just like we saw between the Hood and Caisley camps in the playpen. And, just like then with some supporters knowing - to a greater or lesser extent - some of the tale, but no-one knowing it all (even now, well after the event). With the supporters - and far more importantly the club players and staff - the largely-impotent ones stuck in the middle. Like last time, ultimately the history books will record more of the truth of it all, although like last time I doubt they will ever record it all.

One thing the history books DO record though, here and now, is that OK did step in and we still have a club because he did. Whether folk like me found him hard to deal with, and his attitude difficult, would never have been relevant had he not been the one to step in. The new board's issue with OK seems to boil down to them alleging OK was out of his depth, and placing his trust in others who let him down. Well-meaning but naive? And they seem to have avoided making any criticism of Gerry Sutcliffe, despite his equally high-profile role in saving the club and its subsequent activities. The targets seem very specific. I have long wondered what - or who - persuaded OK to step in in the first place, and how. I doubt he will be thanking them right now.

I guess this would be a very good time indeed for a wealthy doctor or music promoter or similar to manifest himself.

Incidentally, bit hard to file an Annual Return if it is unclear or disputed who owns, and/or has paid for, what shares? Always been clear no way was the delay likely to be down to some oversight. And those (often no friends of the Bulls) who made hay on forums and in the social media about it will not have been wrong, even if the motives of many of them stunk.

To be honest Adey you have hit a lot of nails on, maybe, a lot of heads. I felt totally confused at the News Omar was doing a statutory on the Bulls when the company of OK Bulls was sold to the two Directors first named. Particularly in light of all the "in with the new(Directors) and out with the old!" reports seemingly already logged at Companies House.
As you said that didn't make any sense when it could only be a personal matter of the purchaser agreement, between the parties involved? But certainly we won't know anything for a fact, unless we had been a fly on the wall at that time.
Good post Adey, feel a bit better reference the actual Club survival, which is still tenuous but less so at this moment. It's real tough being a Bulls fan is it not?

Nah, mate. It's tough being a taxi driver in Gaza. Us? We just toddle along, cheer, clap and bitch, and get plenty excuse for a beer and a moan! What's not to like?

Time for CC to ride back in

CC has a SAINTLY look when compared to recent BODS.

Bring back CC.

Yes that's a more accurate description of what tough is!! Apologies to all who really have it tough...Leeds supporters for example???? (that's only a joke folks, before Leeds fans call for me to be brought before the court of Human Rights!)

Honestly though, our game is easy to Love aint it? No matter what team you support!
FA you are spot on, what's not to like!

The beer's crap

Is that the same CC that deliberately took us into administration in order to stick up 2 fingers to Hood. Be careful what you wish for.

Told ya! Been orchestrated since November!!!!

Credit where it's due

See my post on the main current thread...