Who has become vocal? I have been told who one of them are, not sure if true tho.

If this is the smoking gun it's hardly gonna have much of an impact. So they didn't have a license, this gives the council cause to investigate the illegal lottery that was being operated. This would include finding out the number of members and their contributions to the lottery, evidence that the lottery took place, numbers drawn etc., disbursement of monies won to the rightful winners. Now if any of that looks fishy then we would probably be in far more brown stuff than just simply forgetting to apply for a license. For all intents and purposes it is likely to be that they forgot to apply because of all the otehr things that were going on, but ran the lottery in accordance with normal lottery procedures. In that case, I doubt the club is in that much trouble really. If on the other hand there has been payments to winners withheld or evidence of impropriety during the lottery process then I'd assume we'd be in far more trouble.

In sum I doubt that this is big enough to be a huge concern. So unless the Pestegg et al are referring to something else as the major announcement in the middle of November, this is probably yet another trademark nestegg squib of the damp variety.

The licence costs between £20 and £50. I confess I don't know the ins and outs but surely not paying this tidgy amount by mistake or even on purpose is an exceedingly small misdemeanor. Unless I'm missing something?

Running what to all intents and purposes is an illegal gambling operation! Yeah, nothing to worry about. Add in the Pensions stuff and there's likely 2 Government Regulators on the club's back.

I think the council would take a far more pragmatic view of the situation than just viewing it as an illegal gambling operation. The question of intent to conduct an illegal operation would surely be considered.

Shows how inept CBMDC are too to be honest. It was not like anyone was hiding the Lottery... it was there in plain sight.

Not posted for years. Can’t access my old account anyway. ( hence the “2” addendum) As a former lottery manager I can tell you the penalties for running an unlicensed lottery ranges from a £ 5000 fine to 12 months imprisonment. So will get fined.
Also reading back at the posts I do not believe this was what the poster nestegg was referring to. ( believe me.... I’d have picked up on it!)

Thoughts on fogerty? We may not have a massive squad but there’s a growing list of shareholders

Quote ="bringbackjimmy"This from the T & A website this morning. Positive news at last perhaps ? https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/ ... agreement/'" After 134 pages I just thought I'd quote the OP

Quote ="bringbackjimmy"This from the T & A website this morning. Positive news at last perhaps ? https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/ ... agreement/'" After 134 pages I just thought I'd quote the OP

At least we have a shareholder that could put his boots on if needed. Can't remember which film he was in but don't think he will have Russel Crowe's money.

Is Wood just bringing on board everyone who played for Fax when he was CEO. Gary Mercer can come do the lottery, and John Schuster can do a spot of light admin.

Well, we do need more props....

In our last post dated 13 November we said that and we quote .... "[iunless it proves to be absolutely necessary we will not post[/i (on this forum) [ifor a while[/i".

Given the peculiar and distracting events of the past 24 hours or so re this so called lottery matter as reported in the Guardian, albeit only online, then we felt that it may be helpful to set the record straight about a few things:

1) The article is in effect not the so called wide ranging 'smoking gun' to which we have referred to in the past.

2) Moreover, said online Guardian article, when linked to their historic article dated 3 January 2017, is regrettably (re a few key points) somewhat vague and non-specific. The two articles when combined are in part factually incorrect, in particular re events that occurred in respect of the RFL and a related (inaccurate) press statement the RFL (or Nigel Wood) released to the press and media on 3 January 2017. Up until recently we had though highly of the Guardian, and on balance we still manitain that they are for the main part reliable. Sadly, however, said newspaper has for years promulgated a key piece of mis-information re a Bulls' timeline chronology covering the club's past 7-8 year period. Journalists have had almost three years to correct the blatant error that was made by the RFL on 3 January 2017. Why have they not done so? Don't ask us - we are not journalists.

3) That is all we have to say at this time in respect of this apparently unhelpful distraction.

We hope (but sadly do not anticipate) that the above 'statement' will bring an end to the plethora of idle speculation and rumour surrounding this current virtual non-story.

Whilst posting may we affirm that 'we' are NOT operating on any other social media. This excellent forum is the only vehicle we require to project certain key messages to those who may allegedly be ruining our great club, and/or gradually leading the wider UK public, and key investors, to seriously question the credibility and governance of the sport of Rugby League.

Anyhow, enough of the lottery 'story' current nonsense, we need to get back to 'walking the walk'.

You can't remember Fogerty's film, I'm surprised- here's a clue.

And THAT is how important WE ARE HERE!

But seriously, if none of those people read this, your posts are going to be shown as an enormous waste of time and effort.

If I thought I was able enough to run a professional rugby club, I would [udefinitely[/u make my approach to the current owners through an independent, unaffiliated forum (filled with supporters that I have p!$$ed off).

That is exactly how the banking crisis got averted, I hear.

Im glad you took my advice after you PM'd me and posted on here to set the record straight.

Yawn, ZZZzzzzzz

Laughable and ironic that Pestegg is basically calling out idle speculation

Is anyone still paying attention to the rubbish they are posting?.

LAs are only responsible for registering 'small' lotteries, the rules under which they are allowed to operate (contained in The Gambling Act 2005) are enforced by the Gambling Commission. Government Agencies are not renowned for being pragmatic.....

No. Just let him waste his time so we can laugh at him. Has he stopped posting again - until the next time he posts.

So how is a small lottery defined? Where does the Big One sit?

I'm ignorant, so can you point out what this error is, please?
Also, what is the smoking gun you are forever eluding to?
Your posts seem to be much a do about nothing, rather than a tempest.

A 'small' lottery is one that has less than £20k of tickets for sale and which has annual proceeds of no more than £250k and needs only to be registered with the LA. For 'large' lotteries a Gambling Commission licence is required. From the limited information that has come out it would appear that the Big One is a small lottery.

So in that case it will be handled by the LA?