Why did they sell Sammutt to us if they were'nt the owners?

look, the quote simply states:


The PURPOSE of this very limited authority is so that if clubs start to run up HMRC liabilities, the RFL can find out about them.

With respect it is plainly restricted to that, and if all clubs do sign up to this, then I'd also guess RFL don't write many letters of enquiry.

BB2014 would have had whatever discussions HMRC wanted, but the known reason it never got to that was the RFL suddenly deciding to put the new owners in special measures, which they were not prepared to agree, it was a complete deal-breaker.

The HMRC don't care. The new company don't owe the money but are taking over the same organisation, and so the HMRC say, "we'll have a large bond off you first, fellas, because the last lot went down like the titanic and owe us a load."

Business plan goes belly up.

You're right, he is still ours. Send him back immediately!


That's pretty much what they may have said, as i said in my first post on the subject, such requirements are increasingly common.


On what basis? It was remarked above that Calvert is unlikely not to be up to speed with current HMRC policy, and as MM & Co. said, they never had that conversation.

Thats not a valid response, but the question i posed goes to highlight what an unholy mess this is.
can anyone really claim to understand this quagmire of rumour, lie, half truth, behind closed doors deal and counter rumour...?
If this was a thriller story i'd have put it back on the shelf ages ago for being too far fetched!!

But bb2014 would have already had the hmrc liabilities from okbulls through tupe anyway - I assume throughout this whole process the rfl would (and should) have an open dialogue with them about any potential takeovers. Hence the hmrc liabilities of bb2014 could be requested by the rfl as soon as the temporary licence was granted (I assume) - and thus found out about said bond.

There is no evidence to suggest the bb2014 had talked to hmrc - whether it was on the to do list, or whether it was assumed that a debt is a debt and it will be paid off upon the completion of the deal, I don't know. But Moore clearly indicates that he (and thus bb2014) were unaware of any such bond that the rfl told them would be required. There is circumstantial evidence to suggest the rfl had exercised their right to talk to hmrc about okbulls/ bb2014 - further, if this case does taken to court, would be very easy to prove - else, the rfl stated this on assumption, were (potentially) wrong about the matter, and would have destroyed the simplest solution the the Bradford problem. Whether you think the rfl is against Bradford or not, that is gross misconduct, so the rfl must of been sure. We may never know however.

What does seem apparently clear, is that the information the rfl "recieved/ decided on behalf of hmrc" about said bond, clearly destroyed the confidence it had previously had in any such business plan bb2014 had presented. Any such revised business plan that bb2014 had (including the one that had a "mere" 100k shortfall) wouldn't have included any such bond (I can assume from moores comments) and thus, is inaccurate by 6 figures anyway.

Yep, you certainly couldn't make it up. And judging on past debacles going right back to Harrisgate and beyond, we'll never get to know almost anything of what truly goes or went on. At least the tradition of claims /counterclaims/ fierce denials and threats of legal action continues in full spate. I'd miss that.

It goes belly up because the press release indicated that the HMRC wanted collateral that the owners weren't prepared to put up, i.e., their homes.

Like I've said, take away all the spats about how people behaved, the fundamental issues are:
1. Why didn't the new company speak with HMRC?
2. Was the information correct?

If the answer to 2 is yes, then everything else is largely irrelevant.

Which the new board had not been informed of prior to that moment?

Nope.

You've never set up a business, have you.

Nope, just says they never had that conversation

i didn't say that, I have said that something very clearly changed very late in the game, and would like to know what it was. The RFL seemed to be all for MM & Co. up to that point, certainly that impression is what MM's statement confirmed.

Clear? In what way? Nobody has said this, RFL have not claimed this.

Only if you don't understand "bond".

I haven't seen that claim. Where is it?


I don't understand the question. Why didn't the new company ask HMRC if it would like a six figure bond?

In my opinion if such a bond was to be asked for or discussed then rather obviously the discussion starts with HMRC not the other way around?

Nobody has indicated what the response to any such would have been. The statement just says they never had the conversation.

I am not HMRC and do not know whether they would have required any bond or if so on what terms or what size. Or if they would have been negotiable. The only thing that seems to be undisputed is that as at 4th March 2014 at no stage has HMRC asked BB2014 for a bond. Which is odd.

I put 2 and 2 together (aka, the thing that changed the rfls mind would apparently be this bond) I think the the appearance of this bond, that would assumedly be unaccounted for in the business plan, and the rfls souring towards said business plan would seem to align in an obvious way. Of course, this, along with everything else is nothing more than best guesses at this point by all.

Whilst I'm not tupe experts, I do believe they are responsible for debts as well as assets (otherwise if I set 2 business' up, took out a loan for £100mil, placed in admin, tuped the cash assets over to business 2 and liquidated business 1, I'd have the money with no debt!) hence the okbulls debt to hmrc would at least be part of bb2014s problems?

Transfer of Undetakings (Protection of Employment)
Wherever did you get the idea that cash can be TUPE'd

Not in the least. Your example is with respect complete nonsense. Only employees are TUPE'd across. It has nothing at all to do with assets. It is for protection of employees' rights and status, and nil else. If the old employer went bust that debt sticks with that employer.

"and in addition they wanted us to put our houses up as guarantees. If we weren’t in Super League next year they would come after us personally!"

From the Bulls Facebook page as quoted in the long press release quoted by davey999 earlier.

I do think you are hiding behind semantics. You are saying that discussions should have been started by HMRC, and that why should Moore et al contact them to see if they want a six figure bond? Because of the nature of the organisation they were attempting to take over, and that HMRC was a major creditor to the previous administration.

But okay, let's consider the two potential scenarios:
1. Moore t al contact the HMRC and they receive the news that they want their houses as collateral. Moore et al don't even table a bid and you're sunk.
2. Moore et al don't contact the HMRC and the RFL rubber stamp the bid. HMRC turn round and say we won't accept your new business unless you give us your houses as collateral. Moore et al pull out and you are sunk again.

Either way, the only issue is whether the new company was prepared to meet the preconditions set by HMRC. They weren't. Bid over. Who should have contacted whom and who knew what is irrelevant. The outcome is the same.

The ways out would have been if either Moore and the rest had contacted HMRC first and had negotiated the preconditions, but they didn't, or else ask for time from the RFL to contact them and negotiate. Instead, they burned their bridges and its all over.

Can I ask FA to consider these questions, and see what the outcome would have been:
Knowing the preconditions set by HMRC, should the RFL have raised them with the new owner?
If yes, what have they done wrong?
If no, what would have happened when they found out, and knew the RFL had known along?
How could the situation be different, in the light of the knowledge of the HMRC requirements?

We are not talking about the fairness of the HMRC and who owed who what, but purely how it would have played out any differently.

Nope. that refers to RFL. It does not refer to HMRC.


Do you know what semantics are? I'm simply answering questions and giving my opinions. None of what I have put is remotely "semantics". If you want to trade insults, don't talk to me as I'm not interested.


You said "potential scenarios". This is not a "potential scenario". You simply misunderstood the statement.


Ditto.


Nope. Unless you say MM & Co. are lying, (do you?) they did not have the conversation with HMRC (about any "bond" etc). You'd agree if HMRC have not asked for anything, the new owners can hardly "meet" it?

'"

"ONE of the sticking points between the Bulls directors and the RFL has been a debt of around £170,000 to HMRC. Although they said they were willing to meet that debt, they have been told – by the RFL, not HMRC – that unless all creditors are paid in full, HMRC will not accept payment by a new business.
In addition the RFL says the tax authorities are now insisting that whoever comes into take over the business must have a six figure bond, owing to the business having failed twice in such a short period of time."

The HMRC are insisting on a bond, not the RFL, and this will be the guarantees on their house. The statement refers to "they", as presumably as in the RFL told them, but it is the HMRC requirement, communicated to them by the RFL. Why would the RFL require a bond from the new company?

You keep on referring to the fact the Moore et al haven't had the conversation. The bottom line appears to be that they couldn't meet the requirements of the conversation if they'd had it.

It's fingers in ears stuff. What you haven't indicated is how you think the situation would be any different. The HMRC would still require the bond. Instead of pointing the finger of blame, people should just wonder how it could have been different.

Slugger I get it - you're on the wind up, pretending not to grasp simple points. No more.

The same way that nobody at all sold Carvell and the RFL registered both players. Surely you worked out after what you were told by the RFL about being relegated that they make up the rules as they go along and there is no such thing as precedent, (unless you are talking about the Precedent of America)

IF some form of bond was required by HMRC, it's most likely that this would need to be from an "undoubted" source, i.e. BB2014's bank rather than the RFL or the directors personally.

IF this was the case, then I can see that the combination of BB2014 being a "NewCo" and the recent track record of the various Bulls entities would make it perfectly reasonable for BB2014's bank to want to secure this contingent liability (the Bond) with personal guarantees from the directors AND to take legal charges over their homes as collateral.

Like the vast majority of everything else on this thread, the above is only one POSSIBLE theory. Personally, I suspect that the full truth is unlikely to come out in any timescale that is going to be "helpful" to any party interested in acquiring the Bulls.

This argument intrigues me due to the fact that on the specific day (or day before) the points deduction was announced, the RFL has begun to talk on behalf of HMRC placing a number of demands on the owners.

The RFL have said something along the lines of;
"The HMRC will not accepts part payments"
"The HMRC require a bond for a new business"
"The HMRC would like you to put your property forward as a guarantee"

I'm not sure why the RFL decided that they should place these demands on the owners after they had already been ratified, and why do the RFL speak for the HMRC? All seems a bit fishy!

On the other hand, why did none of the Bulls directors say the the RFL, your speaking a load of 'tosh' and then contact the HMRC to confirm what it is they required. The articles in the press would have looked better if it had said, the HMRC denied that they made these claims to the RFL.

There are still many unanswered questions, but given the fact that MM & Co. have openly gone public, they must (one would hope) be confident that what they have said is actually true.

Of the RFL - I'm not happy that Solly went onto Radio Leeds and said the Bulls were deducted 6 points as they failed to make any proposal to pay any creditors, when it appears that this was not the case. The only creditor to not be taken into consideration was OK. Solly's interview on Radio Leeds seemed too 'safe' for my liking, the interviewer never put him under any pressure, and never quoted the claims made by MM of last Tuesday. I find that I am constantly questioning the truth behind any RFL statements at present and I'm finding that I have little trust for what they are saying

I've not heard the Rimmer interview, but by all accounts this was actually worse

So, without trawling back through the thread, has it been clarified how much a new owner would have to stump up / guarantee to meet the requirements of HMRC and the RFL?

And, how long have we got? How long before our various "well wishers" can break open the champagne?

Slugger, you should have worked by now, that anytime you pull the rug from underneath FA, he simply says you don't understand and you are a wind up.

You made some very good points, asked some fair questions, without any tone of insult, trolling or wind-up, but he dismisses you and refuses to answer.

He is a troll on his own clubs board.

Oh dear