Just like Warrington then... hang on?

Andy... what has happened to you? You used to be a well reasoned, well researched and knowledgeable poster... but you now post myopic opinions without any factual base or even slight argument or justification?

And saying everything is Leeds City Council's fault is a reasoned, well evidenced contribution?

Presumably nobody thought to check before they ploughed time and effort into Thornes Park just exactly when Wakefield College would have been able to vacate, which was one of the sticking points along with the £60m price tag.

It's as ludicrous as comparing Wakefield's situation to that of Warrington, not that anyone would do that of course.

Who said this... nobody! The comment was and I quote "The Ground we are trying to sort =#FF0000and probably would be further on if it wasn't LCC" You understand what the word =#FF0000probably means don't you Andy... clue, it does not mean the same as =#FF0000everything! It is his opinion and a very valid one. The consensus (mine included) is that it their actions were the biggest contributing factor to the call-in.



You mean Wakefield MDC do you not? The Wakefield MDC that asked Wakefield Trinity to abandon their then plan to build on the old power station site and come on board with a multi-use sports development in Thornes Park instead? 'They' is not Wakefield Trinity mate... it turned out to be a poor call but my hindsight is 20/20 mate... how about yours?



You mean the Warrington that played in a crap ground, to crap crowds, didn't win anything of note for decades but previously a big club with huge potential, a sleeping (but now awoken giant) in an amateur RL hot-bed... and now financial stability? You are right, no comparison at all!

That isnt an argument to defend Wakefield, not to say what LCC have done is wrong. All it says is Wakefield are attempting to do something, there are problems and obstacles they need to overcome to do that.

However it is Wakefields responsibility to provide SL level facilities, not WMDC nor LCC.

Completely agree, but the OP did not say it was LCC fault or even blame them, he just pointed out that LCC were probably the major reason it did get called in and therefore the reason they are not current just starting on site building a new stadium, as you say. It was just that Andy came back and tried to turn no him saying 'they' were blaming LCC for everything, when he was not blaming them for anything! I was not defending Wakefield but the OP's comment.

it unavoidably seems as if blame is being passed if another party's actions are used as reasons why it hasnt happened.

It isnt because of LCC's actions adding weight to the calls to call in the development which has led to Wakefield not having a stadium with which to include in their application. They have taken ten years or so to get even to this point. Knowing that Belle Vue was a millstone around their necks.

The blame lies solely with Wakefield Trinity and their years of inadequate management that have brought them to this point.

I think we are agreeing with each other, I agree totally with what you have posted above but I can't disagree with what supercat has posted either, he does say they 'would be further on' nothing more. I suspect he probably agrees with you as well!

I've had a word with myself and we're in complete agreement - we would much prefer to go to Keighley than the hovel that I suspect you call your 'home-town'... and Keighley is a REAL sh*thole.

Without exception, every Trinity fan I have ever had the misfortune to meet has come across as small minded and persecuted. In 2008 two Wakefield fans I accidentally bumped into in a bar in Brisbane presented the hypothesis that England’s poor performances in the World Cup were because Senior was picked (by the ‘Leeds’ based RFL) above Ryan Atkins. These deluded morons were serious and typified your average Wildcats supporter.

You’ve had your chances in Super League and blown them, now move aside and let someone else have a go.

Just a tad judgemental aren't we..?

Would have loved to have seen Leeds do as many years in Superleague with BOD like we have had. They wouldn't have even merited as a mickey mouse bunch by anyone's standard. You judge us by our past and not by what we are now a new company with fresh input and with people who know how to run a business. We still won't be anywhere near the biggest team or club but we still offer something to superleague. You yourselves are looking at the possibility that you too could be slapped with a massive tax bill.

Exactly, judging the club on what they have said and done before and not what they have yet to do. Judgemental barstewards the lot of them.

WTF has a possible impending Tax Bill (Which is still way off btw) got to do with his opinions on what you do/don't offer SL?

But not in respect of unpaid VAT, NI etc. Not that your previous board would have recognised the difference.

I understand that currently all the Super League clubs who are threatened with an image rights tax bill have been advised by the RFL and their lawyers not to pay any tax to HMRC. This is, I understand, a fairly normal piece of legal tax advice that is given when taxation is under dispute and then once resolved, the tax is then paid. Now of course, you are advised to keep it safe and sound in your bank until such time as you do resolve things, but if you ain't got it in the first place then of course this is difficult!

So, in actual fact I suspect Leeds are currently not paying any company tax to HMRC but probably do have it sat in the bank waiting to be paid when things finally get resolved.

Not defending Wakefield's previous BOD tax issues... just being a slight pedant!

It would still have been all Leeds' fault even if Atkins had played instead of Senior.

Atkins is a Leeds lad and all his family support Leeds.

I'd be interested in Mr Gilder's thoughts on clubs witholding VAT & NI contributions due to the HMRC even when there is a dispute.

I really like how businesses can delay and even avoid paying taxes in this country. Not many honest employees who find themselves much lower down the food chain have much if any choice in the matter.

I think I won't pay any income tax this week.

I know. Great innit.

Clearly you felt at home with the morons.

I understand that this is general legal advice when a legal and court hearing over disputed tax is pending. Just because HMRC demand tax it does not make them right in the eyes of the law and when you say, sorry HMRC, we think you are wrong and we are going to take this further HMRC have no choice but to defend their position in court. I suspect the reason monies are held back is that they are now subject to a legal challenge. In no other area of law would this happen, so why are HMRC any different?

Lets say company A claimed company B owed them a sum of money and company B denied this. Do you think company B would simply pay up and then say to company A, by the way I am taking you to court because I don't think I owe you this money but you have it for now and then if I win you can pay me it back! What about the interest company A would owe company B if they won in court?

I think 'withholding tax' is different to what the Super League clubs may have been advised to do because they are 'disputing' not 'withholding' and will pay-up when the legal dispute is concluded.

Well seeing as you asked...

If you appeal a determination of tax due raised by HMRC you can apply for the amount under dispute to be held over until the appeal is agreed. So if, for example, HMRC demanded £500k in back PAYE and NICs payments to cover image rights payments to players, you can appeal their judgement and have the debt stood over until a final decision is reached.

What you can't do is arbitrarily withold all future payments of VAT, PAYE and NICs that fall due on the off chance that some of it might end up not actually being due. Well, strictly speaking you can but don't be surprised to find a private debt collection agency knocking on your door wanting to raise a list of goods they can take in settlement.

That appears to makes sense.

Some mistake there surely.

If PAYE is designed to take the tax as you earn the salary, how is it so frequently wrong resulting in a revised tax code the following year, when all details were provided to HMRC on time and in full?

Really... that's the best you could do?

Well done.