From today's T&A;
"Bradford say an impending tax bill and a changed banking lending arrangement has left them with virtually no cash."

So, on the basis of throwing out scraps of information indirectly and via third parties, yes the taxman is one of the people after our hide. Whether anything at all can be read into the use of the word "impending" I have no clue. Adey?

PAYE tax and NI is due to HMRC throughout the financial year dependant on the companies estimated yield so under the assumption they pay monthly only the month 6th March - 5th April would be due by 19th April unless they had delayed in paying over tax deducted from staff when it was due.

I said it on another thread.

Apparently HMRC will petition the High Court for winding up if significant tax liabilities are not paid in the next couple of weeks.

Without going into a lot of detail, HMRC do not resort to this until there are significant arrears.

I also pointed out that, as well as PAYE, you need to consider VAT and perhaps the image rights settlement (although Hood told us, in his disingenuous replies at the forum, that that amount had not been assessed yet!)

If I had to guess (and it is a guess) I would say that, inter alia, the club has yet to pay the December VAT bill, due end Jan. That will be huge, because it will presumably catch all the season ticket VAT AND I suspect the income from the RFL re the sale of the lease. This is a pure guess, since I have neither asked nor been told what VBAT quarters and PAYE months are unpaid.

I suggest folk quit throwing around the normal PAYE dates (and its 22nd monthly anyway if you pay electronically) since those will not be relevant to this. You don't stare oblivion in the face just because you are a few days late paying your PAYE.

HMRC would only know if any PAYE tax is outstanding for the 2011-12 tax year once the P35 en of year cert is in at the year end which the employer has until the 19th May to submit,

And then HMRC have a Business Payment Supprot Unit in place to help businesses pay over any tax overdue

It clearly seems more to be to do with the image rights

More from YP:

"“But we need £1m for the short-term after some unexpected issues came up regarding our tax bill involving image rights.

....The legal issue surrounds the complicated compensation deal agreed with Leeds Rhinos over the Iestyn Harris saga."

Am I reading this right? We have copped a huge and unexpected further image rights tax bill based on the money we paid Leeds by way of compo? How can that be?

And why are we all having to try to work out all the details and reasons like this, why won't the Bulls just come totally clean and tell us what EXACTLY the problem is?

NOT secured by fixed charge against the stadium. Only a floating charge. And in any case, as I pointed out elsewhere I very much doubt the stadium lease ranked highly on the banks valuation of its security, since if the club became insolvent then the head lease would almost certainly have been voided and been worthless!!!

I very much suspect that the excuse given by the bank, to try and avoid a PR disaster, was at best smoke and mirrors. For the above reason. Rather, I suspect they used the one-off income receipt (and maybe concern over the unpaid taxes) as an excuse to reduce their exposure.

I'd just add that, several years ago when I was negotiating a bank facility renewal with RBS for several £m, the manager - a keen RL fan - told me RBS had no appetite for lending to RL clubs and were keen to exit the sector as they were seen as very poor credit risks. And that was before the economy went down the toilet.

Mate, leave it?

It's another of these "secret deals". Like Orford's compensation, etc.
If we are getting stung again for the Harris deal, then it really is almost beyond belief.

Because the board love treating it's loyal fans who it's trying to beg money off like mushrooms.

But why the f**k they can't tell us the truth is beyond me. Now, when they need the support of the public, come clean and let us know what is going on, for once.

Maybe because telling the whole truth might be commercially and legally sensitive?

Guessing - not based on any actual knowledge.

Yeah, it's a good one that: "legally we are not allowed to reveal the details." Saved the Bulls from many an embarassing admission.

It's a cop out.

Agreed but all where getting it might be this it might be that which just isn't good enough when your begging money from the fans because how inept you have been.

You guys know for certain that the club is not prevented from disclosing ever single piece of relevant confidential or sensitive information?

I'm not making excuses for the club. There remains much that still needs better explaining, IMO.

Yep. May I go one step further and suggest that Hood has a downright bloody cheek?

We don't want to know every detail. But we would like to know more than's been drip feed by the Billy brigade at the club.

I can only but agree with the need for some more information.

I know the club reads the relevant forums. I think they will have seen that there are quite a few people who would be more likely to give their support if they felt they had received a few more straight and specific answers to just how we got in this mess, and just how bad it really is. It looks like some are also looking for a display of public [imea culpa[/i, but I'm not sure that would add much at this time. Hold the inquest after the ship has been saved, IMO.

This is aimed mainly at Peter Hood, btw, since I presume he will make the final decisions about what is or is not allowed to be said.

There are lots of things that the club might not be able to disclose, such as individual player contracts. And its possible that the terms of the lease with the RFL are covered by a confidentiality agreement (although I'm surprised that RL fans generally aren't demanding that the details are disclosed).

But there must be lots of information that the club could easily disclose eg how much we owe HMRC. I really cant see how that would be covered by confidentiality agreements. They just dont want to tell us.

Well they never told me when I asked.

And when they did tell you things they turned out to be lies anyway.

I just can't trust this lot. £1 million is a conventiently round number btw.

Great point.

Without wishing to trivialise the situation, would you prefer to hand over £100 (or any amount) to someone in the "blind faith" that they'd put it to good use, or to someone who has given a proper explanation as to what they need the money for and how the circumstances wouldn't be repeated?

Who decides that the target has been met? Remember that if the 500k isn't reached we are not liable for our pledges.

As soon as we have reached the 500k, we must pay. Mmmmm

I imagine the Bank/HMRC will decide won't they?
Either the club will be able to pay them=target met or we go under=target not met.

I have supported Wakefield for a long time and was a shareholder. When we were in trouble last year and our board asked our fans for money I was not prepared to put cash into the existing board. I felt it wouldn't be long before they asked again for more cash.