Because they clearly [iare[/i employed - you know, with a contract and everything, they don't just turn up when they feel like it - by a professional club. They're not playing for an amateur club for recreation.

Of course, Leigh or anyone else are free to set up as an amateur club, not pay players, and play in the appropriate league. But they've chosen to play a professional sport in a semi-pro league.

You'ld love that based on your anti Leigh comments littering these threads

But they could be registered by the RFL as amateur players.
[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/Operational%20Rules%20Part%203.pdf[/url

So if you only take on lads who have already got a job, do you not have to pay um min wage, as theyll be getting their min wage from their main employer, just a thought.

This is wrong. The money was already spent.

Vaughan left the club on the eve of our opening game in the Co-op NL 2007 season. In other words, Vaughan was still in charge when the players were recruited, and had already gone through pre-season and the early rounds of the NRC. Only then did he walk out. As it happens, our first game was on Sky and the commentary team mentioned it and even showed the local paper covering the story.

Those remaining board members were left holding the baby and then had a choice to make; either fold the club there and then, or try and make it to the end of the season paying the players out of their own pockets. I think the latter option was preferable.

Stephen Vaughan, and no-one else, was responsible for the mess Widnes found themselves in.

Did the other directors not have any duties of responsibility?

Stephen Vaughan ruled the roost once he took over. I believe he caused murder in the board room. He even wanted the rest of the board to sign an agreement to be responsible for the debts he was racking up. When they, rightly, refused, he walked out.

He made the decisions which brought the club to it’s knees and brought it in to disrepute with his V.A.T fraud. He now has a clear track record of sending sporting clubs into administration. The previous board, many of which remained at the time, struggled but managed to keep the club afloat. I believe they broke even while Widnes were in SL.

Vaughan is the culprit.

Only if they don't have contracts and are only being paid expenses. Nothing to stop clubs doing that of course, but it will mean less chance of holding onto any youngster who shows promise and will also make them ineligible for first team duty in case of injuries.

How long was he at Widnes?

About 18 months, I think.

A club in the Championship would struggle to do that anyway. But if they showed promise then they would be given a professional contract from the club

That's quite a long time to do nothing. If they were unable to prevent him from acting in that way in the boardroom or were being kept in the dark by someone ignoring the law with regard to company governance, surely their only option was to resign their positions or otherwise they would be in breach of their duties to the shareholders?

I am sure it was a difficult position to be in, but I cannot see how they can absolve all responsibility for what happened.

btw I don't know the technical name but I liked the joke (truism?) at the bottom of your post. It made me laugh out loud in the office.

Like you say, they were in a difficult position. It would be difficult to judge just how much blame could be heaped on the other board members, without knowing what they knew of Vaughan’s dealings, or when he put in place his VAT scam.

Vaughan was the major shareholder and chairman of the club. The reason Vaughan was brought in, in the first place, was because the then chairman, Tony Chambers, was looking at having to shut down the very successful academy side and cut the costs of the first team for the 2007 season. With the loss of Sky TV revenue, &c, the stadium rental costs became a massive burden and the club was in growing debt to Halton Borough Council, plus they had a £50,000 VAT bill. Before Chambers and the board could take action, Stephen Vaughan approached the club (Late 2005 – early 2006) with an offer to buy out TC, pay off any debt, continue to field a strong first team and keep our RFL accredited “world class” academy teams going.

He did this, but then refused to pay for it all, thus amassing further debt, which became more than the club could pay back. He then left, after not getting agreement from the other board members to foot the bills themselves and walked, leaving the club insolvent the day before our first game of the 2007 Co-op NL1 season. He didn’t even pay TC for his shares.

So, the other board members would have found it difficult to stand up to the man, without running the risk of him walking out and, as he was already spending more than we would have under TC, it probably would have been too late anyway. Obviously, the benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Vaughan was the problem. The old board may not have been the most professional of outfits, but what they did, they did in good faith imo. They were certainly not as directly responsible for amassing the debts, which sent the club into administration, as tb is trying to make out.

And here's me thinking that tb frowned upon people who conveniently rewrite history...

Quote ="Derwent"[uIts more likely to mean that its the only way HMRC could get any money back.[/u If they'd wound the club up they would have got nothing as the club has no tangible assets to speak of that the official receiver could sell to distribute funds to creditors. Its pointless to wind up a company that has no assets, except to prevent them from accruing more debt if they carried on trading. By letting them go into administration the administrator will try to find a buyer for the business. Any price paid for the purchase of the business will then go to pay off creditors at a % in the £. If they owed £750k and the business was bought for £75k, as an example, then creditors would receive 10p for every £1 owed to them. HMRC's logic will be that its better to have something, even if its only 10%, than nothing.'" Or as the news story states the debt has been paid www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort ... s-11766553

Quote ="Derwent"[uIts more likely to mean that its the only way HMRC could get any money back.[/u If they'd wound the club up they would have got nothing as the club has no tangible assets to speak of that the official receiver could sell to distribute funds to creditors. Its pointless to wind up a company that has no assets, except to prevent them from accruing more debt if they carried on trading. By letting them go into administration the administrator will try to find a buyer for the business. Any price paid for the purchase of the business will then go to pay off creditors at a % in the £. If they owed £750k and the business was bought for £75k, as an example, then creditors would receive 10p for every £1 owed to them. HMRC's logic will be that its better to have something, even if its only 10%, than nothing.'" Or as the news story states the debt has been paid www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort ... s-11766553

I'm suggesting that having wrecked three other clubs (2 RU, 1 soccer), it was pretty obvious that LS would do the same to Crusaders. It is not like people were only wise after the event.

Quote ="Traffic"Or as the news story states the debt has been paid www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort ... s-11766553'" I suggest you read it again. Nowhere in that article does it say the bill has been paid. It refers to the claim made at the last hearing that it had been.

Quote ="Traffic"Or as the news story states the debt has been paid www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort ... s-11766553'" I suggest you read it again. Nowhere in that article does it say the bill has been paid. It refers to the claim made at the last hearing that it had been.

Does that mean Wigan are going to be booted out of the Super League on account of when they had players playing free of charge a couple of years ago?

Sorry. I read it as the hearing after the adjournment had been told it's paid not the first one (until I read the words that hearing)

No, but if The RFL were straight....Wigan, and in particular, Ian Lenegan would be in trouble.

I'll ask again , is it reasonable to insist that only some of a squad of players are paid to minimum wage when others dont have to be ?

Or even that you have to pay your under 18's more money than you pay your 1 st team ?

Read back through these forums, you'll find certain people consistently defending the decision to go with LS, stating that it was the right decision at that time, hailing it a roaring success. Even claiming that he was responsible for the spread of the junior game in Wales.. I personally think they are barmy.

You forgot to mention the barrel that he held the RFL over, something to the effect of "Give me a license in 2008 or I'll pull the plug on this whole joint"... Yet still people didn't hear any alarm bells ringing.. Of course, us critics were forever cast aside as flat cap, flat earth morons.. Well I'll tell you what, I'd rather be a flat capper than an expansion at all costs lunatic any day of the week..

I was thinking the same - thats twice in past week or so that TB has a different version of events that went on at Widnes. 1st it was Widnes being liquidated unlike Crusaders and now it was the board after Stephen Vaughan who was responsible for spending money we didn't have.

Stephen Vaughan authorised all of the signings for 2007 and then quit of the day (or the day before) our 1st league game. If I remember correctly the remaining board members found about £300,000 to fund us to the end of the season, but the massive tax bill was the straw that broke the camels back. I can't really blame the remaining directors for being unable or flatly refusing to pay the bill for the carousel fraud.

I find it surprising for tb to be wrong about Widnes' financial troubles at the end of 2007.I thought he was quite an authority on the subject,after all he does post about it on a regular basis.If I didn't know any better I would suspect he actually enjoys pointing out the club going into administration that year.

I find this amusing TBH, you are wasting your time posting these bits as we all know tb is never wrong when it comes to Widnes.

If I was a little more paranoid than I already am, I might think that he has something against Widnes