gutterfax ..... the troll that keeps on trolling

Thanks for this btw, your intelligent and thoughtful analysis adds so much. Not.

Would be nice if we could have one... just ONE... thread where, on our own forum, Bulls fans could discuss one subject without witless attempts at thread deflection.

How many of the sponsorship deals are still valid now we’re in admin? The Uni have pulled out of their deal, it wasn’t for much money but it was better than nothing I suppose.

Damn. There goes needling people for free hospitality.

£400,000 is a serious amount of money to find in 2 weeks, unless you include the £300,000 Sky windfall which was muted at that time, I guess.

Not quite so simple. The Operating plan would just be for current seasons operations and would not include payments to historic creditors where figures of several hundred thousand have been mentioned.

In practice it you are running at a £100k loss and then get your "stolen £500k Sky cash" back you are unlikely to get a £400k surplus because the chances are you will try to strengthen the squad again which will increase the wages bill.

So "folly" might be a strong word but trying to save the Bulls without having some significant cash to put into the business would rank up there with paying for a search for the Loch Ness monster.

But whose word do we have that they didn't have the money,if the only "proof" we have is from Rimmer, it probably means the complete opposite

Oh come on - if they did have the money then none of this would be happening!!

I'm not trying to judge who's right and who's not,but the administrator seemed happy with their bid.Im saying i tend not to believe the RFL on anything these days

was this £100k loss after the half sky money being deferred over 5-6 years..??

was it an operating loss on the ongoing season without any account for all creditors being paid at the outset....

The devil is in the detail

The proof that they didn't have the money seems to be that they only collateral they could offer up to the HMRC as guarantees were their own homes.

As I read the press release, they had worked hard to come up with a business plan that was potentially sustainable in the long term, subject to avoiding relegation, but the HMRC wanted extras that they were unable to provide. Which seems a shame.

I never suggested anything was "simple", and wasn't MM's stated plan to repay the old creditors/debts over 5 years?


Er, that's what I said! Anyway a break-even operation rather than one making a £1/2m might be a somewhat more realistic aim.


No, that analogy is too strong. What I think you mean is trying to save the Bulls AS A SL FORCE without significant cash. And anyway, your argument amounts to a contention that no club can operate without a sugar daddy pumping in large sums of capital. That is clearly not true, although it is true such a team will never win any pots.

No, the devil is in the RFL not apparently being d to bother reading it.

I haven't read anything anywhere that said or alleged HMRC had any discussion with BB2014 at all. Have I missed it? Can you post a link, I'll be very interested to read it.

I'm assuming that what the RFL told them of the HMRC position was accurate. If the Bulls press release is correct, there is little doubt that the RFL told them of HMRC preconditions that the new company couldn't fulfil. So regardless of people's views of the RFL, it was always going to fail.

There is, therefore, only one real issue: were the RFL accurate in what the HMRC stance was?

The question has to be asked also that as one of the major creditors was the HMRC, why haven't the new company had discussions themselves with HMRC? The press release states that the Bulls hadn't had the chance for that conversation with the HMRC. Why not? They are asking for ratification of a business plan without any recourse to a major creditor? The RFL had found out that there would be extra preconditions, as far as they are aware. How could they approve it, knowing that? Or say, go away and do what we have done?

The press release is high on emotion, but when you break it down, the RFL haven't done that much wrong. If the RFL had got out the big rubber stamp, then I doubt there would have been complaints, but how could they when there were preconditions the RFL knew couldn't be met.

Why didn't Moore et al just speak to the HMRC afterwards, seeing if they could re-approach the RFL if the preconditions were lifted. Instead, there was a dummy spit which means they have probably stiffed any chance of further dealings.

Next year for us will be manna from heaven. We just have to get there. There's potentially an extra £1m of sky money when we get our full allocation of the new upgraded deal.

If Moore & co have said "look, in December, we identified that incoming was going to be £3m, outgoings £3.4m. We've worked hard and got it to, respectively, £3.1m (with extra sponsorship) and £3.2m, with staff cuts. And from november, of course, our income jumps to £4.1m. We think this is workable over the next 5years...." I can kind of see their point.

Like I said, they have worked out a business plan, but the crux of the press release is that they couldn't meet the preconditions of the HMRC. The RFL could have rubber stamped it, but what happens when the new company starts to deal with the HMRC and they say, "we need your six figure bond", as it says in the press release? Everything goes bang again.

I don't think so at all.

It is common knowledge (well, in business circles anyway) that HMRC are more frequently asking for bonds from new businesses and it would be no surprise if sports clubs were targetted and more so ones where a previous incarnation of a business had previously already cost HMRC money; but that would surely need to be a discussion between the owners and HMRC.

It is very kind of RFL to impart generalised advice as to what HMRC might say or do but you (presumably) know as well as I do that under no circumstances would HMRC discuss the confidential private affairs of BB2014 or its directors with RFL or anyone else but the taxpayer concerned or its authorised advisers.


That does NOT say "it would have been pointless having any such conversation".

Not sure you're right there.

First page of RFL financial matters........

Except that you forget the new owners were not the new owners yet and never became so, nor did it have any liabilities to HMRC.

...but it confirms that the RFL had every right to know the full details of the clubs HMRC liabilities.

Absolutely on the mark. Given the business interest of the director handling the finance ,it is almost inconceivable that Calvert was unaware of HMRC policies in this area. And he was the director who seemed to receive most compliments from Red Hall before the sudden change of attitude.

It would, IF the club gave HMRC permission to share information "about the club's liabilities". Which liabilities in the case of BB2014 are zero.

Where does it say that HMRC are authorised to discuss the specifics of a given case, whether any and if so what bond they would want? (As opposed to general observations and guidance).

And as BB2014 say they never had that conversation with HMRC nobody can state how that conversation would have gone anyway.

But gave the company the temporary 28 day licence, as soon as that was confirmed, bb2014 would of been constrained to the same rule book, and thus, could request from hmrc without going through the club.

Worst case scenario is when bb2014 accepted the temp licence, they ticked the terms and conditions box without reading!

Why didn't Moore just say, "thank you for the information of which we were previously unaware. We will go away and have discussions ourselves with HMRC and see whether these preconditions can be lifted or modified and return back to you forthwith"?

Instead, they burned their bridges in a massive way, and none of this avoids the central issue of the fact that if it was accurate, the new company couldn't or wouldn't fulfil them, and so it was going to fail.

Any why didn't they, is another question?

A lot of ire being directed at the RFL, but fundamentally the RFL asked the questions the new company should have asked, and communicated information the new company should have been aware of.