When it was revealed that the reason for the late publication of Shield fixtures was the Swinton winding up petition, I went to The Gazette only to find that HMRC have since September last year issued 5 winding up petitions against Swinton, all eventually dismissed.

So, question to my learned colleagues, why have Swinton not been deducted 6 points???? I can understand it for one, maybe two petitions, but 5? And a good argument for the company trading insolvently, which it is not supposed to do in company law and in RFL rules.

One issue is the lack of detail as to why the petitions were dismissed, which could shed some light on matters.

The reason will be because they have settled there winding up petition, if they hadn't they would of been put in admin and then been given a point deduction.

I think!!!!!

I think that's right Ricky.

Don't like to see threads like these, people clamouring for other teams to be deducted league points etc.
Hopefully Swinton can get their finances sorted out and don't end up in a position similar to the ones we've found ourselves in too many times over the last few seasons. I suspect selling Atkin to Hull KR has given them the cash boost they needed.

Besides, Swinton could go bust and be deducted an infinite number of league points - it still wouldn't change anything with regards to relegation so who cares?

If they get a winding up order dismissed, they've done nothing wrong as far as the competition goes. We got deducted points for going into admin, not for having Winding Up Orders/Petitions against us. Jesus, if we'd have been deducted for every one of those too, we'd be on about -106 points now.

The question is about 5 yes FIVE winding up petitions since September 2016, one every two months average, so thanks for the comments so far, but none address the question.

Correction: 6 yes SIX winding up petitions. Dates:
19th August 16
18th October 16
19th December 16
22nd February 17
3rd May 17
7th July 17

These are all dismissed, not deferred or postponed, so as far as I can see are not the one petition presented six times, but six separate ones. Or can anybody advise differently, that its one and the same insolvency event, and therefore fully understandable.

It will be interesting to see if they get last years accounts to CH in time, due at the end of this month. The Confirmation Statement (annual return to most of us) appears to have been late as there was a striking off notice from CH in The Gazette followed quickly by receipt of the CS. That's in March this year.

looking at the previous figures for 2014 and 2015, they lose money every year which is offset by share issues, but no issues in 2016/17 hence this years would be interesting to see. However, Intangible Assets (my alternative name for this balance sheet line is The Biggest Opportunity for Window Dressing your Accounts) have increased each year, keeping the balance sheet positive rather than negative (negative would mean that their losses exceed share capital).

Any body got any idea as to what Intangible Assets the Swinton Lions could have that are worth £100,000 at cost, possibly more when we get 2016 accounts let alone 2017? You would think there was something, with Alan Marshall being an accountant and the Trust's representative on the board of directors, wouldn't you?

What is this 'insolvency event' you are referring to?
HMRC will issue a winding up order every time a payment is late. If all of these petitions were dismissed, then that probably means that the liabilities were eventually paid.

The reason ours went a step (or several steps) further is because there was no way in the world we were ever going to have the funds to pay HMRC, or any of our other creditors for that matter. Green deferred it as long as he could, until he knew the game was up.

See some sad stuff on here over the last few years but for a Bulls fan to clutch at such low straws is the worst. When any club get's in difficulty it's sad and if they get winding up orders and sort them we should celebrate that.

It's almost like a final reminder on a household bill martinwildbull there is no limit to the number you get as long as they are paid. Bull couldn't so RFL had to punish you. Sad truth and I think in every case the previous owners didn't get a "Clean" set of accurate accounts and massively underestimated the investment required and ran out of investable capital so just couldn't find the money to fight winding up orders.

In a way the only logic I can see this year from an outside point of view is that the owners are trying to baseline the running cost so the can create a working model to take you forward.

Must as the fans are hurt the owners could have been brought in a few players to get a few more wins, so again all I can see is them trying to limit losses so with full RL money and no points deduction they can start moving upward once more.

I think if they did go tits then it would likely mean one less team being relegated as otherwise the numbers wouldn't add up.

Hopefully Swinton somehow manage to sort it out. I wouldn't wish any of what we've had on my worst enemy and above all you feel sorry for the fans.

substitute "reason for petitions" for insolvency event, Nothus. So was it one reason behind all six. for example a historic tax bill of £100K which they have defended six times, or they couldn't afford the PAYE for six months out of ten, or something else?

Any thoughts on the balance sheets, Nothus? My view is technically insolvent in 2015 if you ignore the intangible assets, with the business owing twice as much as it had in cash or was owed. Do you know anything about the intangible assets? I just cannot figure out anything that the company could own that would justify being capitalised.

And just say you don't know the answers, Nothus, that is enough, I am after better information that may shed light on the issue.

Why? Does it really matter?

When Hood made a mess I did an analysis of 10 years the Bulls Stat accounts and other Bradford data such as economic, and demographic, and concluded that we will never ever get back to those golden days, without a sugar daddy. So all the subsequent events have come as no surprise to me. The majority view on this site, and mine as well, is that we should have been in C1 this year, so yes its a bit annoying, but after a years delay we will be in the place where we can genuinely start to get both team stability and financial stability. I also believe that if chalo proceed as they have hinted, a core of home grown and a selection of experienced players and a reserves side in which they can develop, then that will bring us success in a few years, success meaning a team playing good rugby and winning more than losing. Halifax reserves beat Saints reserves, Fax are in the 8s so it clearly works for them. Have a look at the BBC article on how Monaco with attendances of 9000 a game could win the league.

I see what you are getting at, but a winding up petition is more we are going to have your house; if you are in a place where a winding up petition is being treated as the time to pay then you should not be trading.

So many questions, and nobody with any informative answers to push the analysis along. Anybody?

This statement from Swinton might help www.swintonlionsrlfc.com/news/356

This statement from Swinton might help www.swintonlionsrlfc.com/news/356

Quote ="bezzerscr"This statement from Swinton might help www.swintonlionsrlfc.com/news/356'" If only the motley selection of charlatans and shysters we Bulls fans have put up with as owners had the stones to release such a statement when we have been in such a predicament. I'm glad it's looking more positive for then. The game is already in a precarious position without old established clubs like Swinton going under.

Quote ="bezzerscr"This statement from Swinton might help www.swintonlionsrlfc.com/news/356'" If only the motley selection of charlatans and shysters we Bulls fans have put up with as owners had the stones to release such a statement when we have been in such a predicament. I'm glad it's looking more positive for then. The game is already in a precarious position without old established clubs like Swinton going under.

Thanks bezzerscr. You are not even the GruppenoberKommandantmitbratwurst-in-chief of the RAB branch of the grammar gestapo and yet you clearly understand the difference between a question mark and an exclamation mark.

Totally agree Pass13worD. A reason for the club, by which I mean the fans not the owners, to celebrate.

And it reads like a hold my hands up to a mighty f13k up. November 2016 contractual commitments, budgets need adjusting,assurances to other creditors, etc etc. An admission that the 6 winding up petitions were all essentially related to the same issue going back pre season. No mention of £100k historical tax issue, that did not look right to me either. Reads like the fate that the Dewsbury Ostriches feared except in their case what would happen following promotion to Superleague not the Championship. 3rd party input involved, again no surprise, clearly a publicity shy hero(ine) or hero(etc)(s).

Obviously without access to the accounting records all anyone can do is guess.
So at a guess, I'd say the HMRC winding up petitions were down to unpaid PAYE liabilities, which would explain their regular occurrence. Maybe some VAT too but I'm not sure.
We do know that they were dismissed though, not deferred, so it's largely irrelevant.

As for the balance sheet, again we can only guess. What could be in intangibles? Licences, costs associated with the website, trademarks, maybe even some goodwill?
I don't really think it matters though. Even if they weren't there and the company had negative reserves, it could still continue to trade without any issues.
I work with plenty of companies in such a position, assurances from directors or other sources will keep the company as a going concern. They can't pay any dividends out but that's not really on Swinton's agenda anyway I wouldn't have thought.

Just the sort of anal question that I find hard to resist!

It reflects poorly on the RFL as the procession of petitions martinw refers to seems to fly in the face of the RFL's written policies and procedures on "financial sustainability" even if a WUP which is dismissed isn't actually an insolvency event. But what is? I had a quick look.

Section A3.1 of the Operational Rules say "as defined in the RFL Articles of Association". But what is "RFL"?
Definitions say RFL means RFL (Governing Body) Ltd. The Articles of which on my (sadly non-searchable) copy don't appear at first blush to contain any such definition. Anyone got a microscope and time to use it? My copy is the one passed in Dec 2015. (Maybe our penalties and points have therefore been deducted illegally? Perhaps someone should immediately sue

)




I hope it's not, but the Swinton statement does read like the dreaded chairman's vote of confidence in the manager. Unfortunately to me it reads depressingly llike this one [url=http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/bradford-bulls/green-rules-out-administration-at-troubled-bradford-1-8049855from Marc Green "ruling out" administration[/url a short time ahead of last September's winding up petition of our own.

I suspect the RFL turn a blind eye to their own operational rules in same way referees ignore players not touching the ball with their foot at the play the ball.

As for Swinton I hope they're alright now but thanks to bitter experience we know these statements have an unhappy habit of proving to be bollox.

You can turn blind eyes to anything, but that may not wash if them pesky lawyers get wind of it

With the matter going before the court Swinton off-loaded a head coach and a half-back.

When Bradford were going before the court(s) they still managed to recruit a head coach and a half back from Australia.

No special measures or a registration embargo was placed on the club - despite repeat performances under different owners.

[url=http://media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Section%20A3%20-%20Finance%20final%20pdf.pdfA3:2[/url

As you have repeated on countless occasions you not getting tired of it yet?

Yes, PAYE was my assumption so I am glad to have someone, with the appropriate technical knowledge and experience, that agrees. Looking at the dates of the first four, all within a day or two of the due date (22nd of the following month for the non-accountants here) it seems to me that they were to ensure that the arrears never got to two months, only one, hence that pattern. The two recent ones however have different timing.

I just do not see anything remotely worth £100K, the website should have cost not a lot and what licences intellectual property trade mark brand or other software could they have developed. Swinton Lions PS4 rugby league team management game would start to tick the boxes, though who would buy that (Bulls fans maybe!)

And yes, if someone, who clearly does not want to be identified, wants to guarantee payment then that is fine, that is what it looked like to me hence my reference to technically insolvent. But clearly someone prepared to put a bit in whilst the dream was still alive, but once reality and the amount spiralled, clearly they did not want to know/could not cover it, prompting the sale, appeal to fans (bless them) and yes, unidentified parties.

FA's contribution, thanks FA, is to point out that the RFL must have known all along about this, but cannot pin point what the definition of insolvency event is.

So in the Articles of Association, right down at the bottom, it says that an Insolvency Event includes (4.10.2.a.ii) "If any petition is presented... for the winding up of the company". This is entirely logical, as an unsatisfied Statutory Demand would almost certainly be required as evidence to support the petition, and an unsatisfied Stat Demand is in the Insolvencies Act as An Insolvency Event, not the Winding Up Petition.

So we are approaching my question again, which I will re-state a bit fuller based on the various contributions: on the face of it, Swinton should have been deducted 6 times 6 points = 36, from August 2016 onwards. So those appear to be the facts, now for the question: why have they not been deducted any points, what are we missing?

The RFL usually ensure there is flexibility in the rules for them to decide what they want to do, in this case there does not appear to be any such flexibility with insolvency event so the RFL cannot be behind it. So why were these not insolvency events?

Pop up cynic, we sold players BEFORE any winding up petition when there were players worth selling, not AFTER five winding up petitions. I suggest you become a full time cynic, like most RAB members, not the pathetic amateurish cynic you aspire - but fail - to be. You can do my online training course, capitalised as an intangible asset at £1,000,000.

I'm assuming Swinton's worries are behind them completely now because they announced two new signings last night....transfer deadline, what's that?

Actually they announced five new signings. Only one of which was a loan deal.