I've not forgotten anything, and I would have held exactly the same opinion had the RFL been called upon to dig Leeds out of the mess they got themselves in.

The RFL should not exist to play piggy bank. Looking at it from the outside, it appears one of the major factors in Wakefield getting into this mess was that they had treated the cash from the developers on permission being granted as a "done deal" and budgeted accordingly. If that is the case, then its directors need to take a long look at themselves for getting the club into this mess.

I would suggest some folks on this thread clearly don't understand the difference between a "bail out" and a secured loan either...

Can someone explain to me which developers were giving cash to wakefield and for what? I must have missed something

Wakefield were due to receive AFAIK £350K from the developers of the Newmarket site upon receipt of final planning approval.
I'm sure IA will have fuller details.

The RFL aren't a bank - yes it is a loan that is secured, but it's also clearly a bail-out. Unless you think Crusaders could have raised £700k from a commercial lender?

In answer to the question, Wakey will start the season however will they finish it?

I expect another winding up petition in February.

If there is a serious question mark over Wakey being able to fulfill their fixtures for the whole season should they be allowed to start it?

This is a very relevant question. Depending on the terms of the Sky contract, the RFL might be left with little choice but to bail them out once they've started the season.

They bailed out Crusaders so surely they have no choice in some ways. Please don't think I am condoning Wakefield's current financial position, I am not, but neither am I condoning Crusaders either.... but the RFL appear to be! My issue here is that had the RFL not stepped in the Crusaders would already not be starting SL, if they had taken that decision than Wakefield's current plight would be there own problem. However, it is very much like the bailing out of the Bank's, once you have decided to bail out one then you have to do all the others as required.

We also can't forget that Wakefield's pending issue with the tax-man is not just theirs alone, it is the whole of SL's and what happens when Castleford get their bill and can't pay or maybe St Helens, £8m in debt and hit with what we assume will be tax bill heading towards the number close to what Leeds are rumoured to having hanging over their head at £2m.

The RFL also have to take some responsibility for the issue of HMRC's rumoured tougher stance because they did bail out Crusaders and the money they think they are owed went with it!

From the VT, thanks Derwent for the timely info!



There you have it and I assume that Derwent's source is official and public record.

Crusaders had a property asset to secure the sums owed against, Wakey have nowt.

Who did, Crusders did you say... I didn't release that the new Ltd company had bought the Racecourse ground!

By the way it is not the issue of the RFL not giving them the money now or previously, just the issue of whether they will bail them out when they have to... by the same token Wakefield are not yet in administration, but they could well be soon.

Not sure I understand your point.



I doubt it as they're not seen as a strategic asset in the same way Crusaders are likely to be.

I have no axe to grind with Wakefield, in fact quite the opposite I hope that they can secure the new ground and look back on this incident as a minor blip in their long history. However if they will not be able to complete the season then they shouldn't be allowed to start it.

Whilst it is in the RFL interest that their clubs operate on a sound business footing, it seems that Wakefield may have been some distance from that for quite some time. I have to ask if they were not (hoping) to move ground, and therefore not (hoping) to receive the £350k downpayment, where would that leave their business plans?

It seems that the Salary Cap, the great white hope for continual financial liquidity of the clubs, isn't quite what we were hoping it to be...

That's one way of looking at it. The other is that if a club cannot operate (well below) a salary cap that hasn't been raised for some time, should they be in SL at all?

If you can't operate at breakeven in SL and you don't have someone willing to fund your losses - there is only really one logical outcome isn't there?

The point is who owns the Racecourse ground, because it is not the company that is a member of the RFL or the previous company that was a member of the RFL! You said Crusaders had a ground but they don't, two people connected with them own a ground... it does make a difference!

Don't forget Wakefield owe the RFL nothing but the Crusaders owe them £700k... you can see why HMRC are so pleased with the RFL for engineering their own preferential creditor status by the back door can't you.

So why did the RFL do that for Crusaders and not for Wakefield, that is the question!

Wakefield's debt is minimal and mainly owed (currently) to the tax-man, Crusaders were £2m in debt and the RFL sanctioned wiping out their debt and letting them carry on in SL! Is it just me that can see the huge double standard here.... if the RFL had not stepped in Crusaders would not have started the 2011 season... simple as!

The people who own the racecourse ground are the same people who own crusaders. They can secure a loan against in the name of the crusaders if they so wish. It wouldnt be at all uncommon.

That's a point I find difficult to understand.

IMO the RFL have to some extent set expectation levels at a number of clubs with their support of Crusaders. Again I don't know the full details of the support they have given to Crusaders (other than the amount) but I do wonder if it was linked to a longer term business plan by Crusaders and a strategic development plan for RFL.

It may be that secretly the RFL are willing to let Wakefield die and thus reduce the number of clubs in a very congested area (where I live by the way) so that they can bring in another club and widen the geographic coverage of SL. This also supports why they wouldn't let Crusaders go.

FWIW I think that the RFL should be more proactive in making sure that the member clubs are capable of fulfilling their obligations financially, but should stop short of bailing any club out of a perilous financial position. The bottom line is that our clubs are still run mainly by Amateur businessmen rather than real professionals, and as long as they continue with their "hobby" we will continue to have this type of problem.

I think your inference that HMRC are chasing down Wakefield as retribution for Crusaders pre-pack is spurious at best.

The bigger problem for Wakefield is that they themselves, as an enterprise, currently lose between £200-£300k a year and their chairman has an IVA. Who funds that loss for next year?

They have had two winding up orders in a year so i can see them getting credit, anywhere, from anyone. So who funds a £200k loss for this year?

Debt if serviceable, is nothing. Cash is King.

Wakefields big problem is that even if they go through a pre-pack like Crusaders they A) still have a payment of a few million due for the ground which would immediately go to the creditors which Im sure the owners dont want to lose. and B) the owners still dont have any money and still wont be moving forward, so they will get no benefit from it other than wiping out a debt you state is minimal.

Oh and the RFL didnt sanction the administration, the clubs voted for it to no longer preclude admission to SL. Im not sure what you perceive as a bailout. But I cant see how insisting that a specific debt is paid by a company that doesnt have the legal obligation to do so can class as a bailout.

It is not Wakefield it is the whole of SL but this current winding up order does relate to image right payments I understand, so it is the first winding-up order for this other than Crusaders. The RFL & Leeds are trying to do a deal with HMRC and they are flat refusing to do any deal and you can't help but think that maybe HMRC would have been more willing to do a class deal similar to RU's if they RFL had not indirectly help see them out of £500k worth of tax!

Wakefield's problem is cash-flow and to be fair it kills many a business in hard times. They don't have much debt (we understand) but HMRC is chasing back-tax (as they are for the whole of SL) and they are in the period of the season with no regular income. I am not condoning Wakefield's position and if the RFL had let this current Welsh folly die, as it would have done otherwise if they had not stepped in, then letting Wakefield do the same would be fine... but they didn't did they!

But the RFL havent. All the RFL have done is follow their rules (which admittedly the clubs have voted to change) and insist that their debts get paid.

The HMRC are doing the same thing they often do in pushing it as far as they can before making a deal, all that will happen with Wakefield is they will say that they challenge it on the same basis Leeds do, there is no reason to expect that HMRC are wanting to pursue two test cases on the same issue simultaneously or that a court will let them. Its a bit of brinksmanship and Wakefields current problems are far more structural than this one off payment.

The RFL would allow Wakefield to do the same as they have done with Crusaders. It just so happens that what happened with Crusaders wouldnt really help Wakefield move forward.