Sounds right as that's what happened when they refused to register Batley's players until paid Tax debt off immediately even though a payment plan was in place. So basically allowed Cru to drop tax debt and stay in SL but hoping to save face with tax office want all over clubs to pay up straightaway placing some under unnecessary financial risk... Great ain't they!

Has there actually been any confirmation of this?

It would be pretty unusual for HMRC not to honour an agreed repayment plan provided the company keeps within its terms (i.e. payment of all future liabilities as and when they fall due etc).

I think it's very convenient to blame this on HMRC (and the RFL, and Crusaders . . . ) pulling the plug on an agreed deal that Wakey had been sticking to, but I haven't read anything confirming that this is the case?

Not sure on HMRC involvement but Batley Chairman confirmed RFL forced then to pay up in lump sum or wouldn't register players.

Quote ="FearTheVee"Has there actually been any confirmation of this? It would be pretty unusual for HMRC not to honour an agreed repayment plan provided the company keeps within its terms (i.e. payment of all future liabilities as and when they fall due etc). I think it's very convenient to blame this on HMRC (and the RFL, and Crusaders . . . ) pulling the plug on an agreed deal that Wakey had been sticking to, but I haven't read anything confirming that this is the case?'" I've only seen it refered to here: www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/wakefiel ... 6682780.jp Quote ="YEP"Furthermore, it is understood an arrangement made with HM Customs and Excise to pay further unpaid tax bills over a set period has been torn up after it saw the Crusaders enter administration last month and it seems likely Wakefield could be set for a similar result unless an amazing effort is completed in the next three weeks.'"

Quote ="FearTheVee"Has there actually been any confirmation of this? It would be pretty unusual for HMRC not to honour an agreed repayment plan provided the company keeps within its terms (i.e. payment of all future liabilities as and when they fall due etc). I think it's very convenient to blame this on HMRC (and the RFL, and Crusaders . . . ) pulling the plug on an agreed deal that Wakey had been sticking to, but I haven't read anything confirming that this is the case?'" I've only seen it refered to here: www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/wakefiel ... 6682780.jp Quote ="YEP"Furthermore, it is understood an arrangement made with HM Customs and Excise to pay further unpaid tax bills over a set period has been torn up after it saw the Crusaders enter administration last month and it seems likely Wakefield could be set for a similar result unless an amazing effort is completed in the next three weeks.'"

Cheers - I think I get it now.

Sir Rodney loaned the cash based on the OPP being granted - which I guess was a bridging loan until the 'developers' paid the money that they would get. This was to finalise the existing debt which was from 12 months ago and in an agreed payment plan with HMRC. In the meantime Wakie have been spending the taxmans money thinking they would be able to cover it with the developer payment and found the carpet has been pulled from under them by the Secretary of State.

Whoever has advised Wakefield on this needs shooting from a great height and then shooting again! It's shockingly bad management - regardless of the Crusaders Administration exasperating this.

If the Batley case is true, that there were unable to sign players because they owed the taxman - why has not been the case for Wakefield and Crusaders? Or is Superleague exempted from this rule?

In terms of licensing, it seems that the 'three year licence' is causing problems for Wakefield as there is uncertainty at the end of this year for their survival in Superleague. This is largley preventing investment coming in.

Unfortunately for Wakie they have had a string of things go wrong at the wrong time. You have to wonder how different things would have been if the stadium was further down the line.

Wadski mate you have hit all the nails right on the head I think with that post!

My only comment about Wakefield and people advising Wakefield over the issues, and them needing shooting, this would imply that they maybe had other choices... I don't think they did and then in that context then if that is your only option then you have to take it!

Administration seems the right way to go now (which I am sure will once more make HMRC very happy!) and if rumours are true Wakefield have several new backers interested, they can play in SL this season and see what happens.... you never know! Taking a drop would then not be the end of the world because the backer will have a debt free-club and the prospect of a new paid-for (almost) SL standard ground to move to in a couple of years. They have a new ground, a new backer for the next round of applications... you would think they could be a good bet to come back in again!

Quote ="Khlav Kalash"I've only seen it refered to here: www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/wakefiel ... 6682780.jp '" I think it's far more likely the agreement was "torn up" (if indeed it has been torn up at all) because Wakey couldn't make the agreed repayments or couldn't pay some current VAT/PAYE/NIC as a result of recent events.

Quote ="Khlav Kalash"I've only seen it refered to here: www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/wakefiel ... 6682780.jp '" I think it's far more likely the agreement was "torn up" (if indeed it has been torn up at all) because Wakey couldn't make the agreed repayments or couldn't pay some current VAT/PAYE/NIC as a result of recent events.

You think so ?

Administration may be a problem for them because the deal with Cala Homes is between them and the existing limited company. Should the company go out of business then 'all bets are off' with regards to Belle Vue and I suspect that they would lose their home ground. Without somewhere to play out of Administration may see them homeless. If this issue could be resolved for 2011 season then I would try to do a Crusaders before the start of the season then have half a season of SL under their belt as a new company and cause a problem to the RFL licensing committee because their situation is the same, if not better than Crusaders because of history in the top flight. This would also force the hand of potential investors and mean that they are investing in an SL club and thus keen to maintain WTW in SL rather than taking on a club without a licence in the Championship.

You could be right, but only a certain few people know what has actually happened, and the majority of supporters are not one of them so we have to pick up scraps such as the article referenced and third hand info.

Actually yes, the more and more I look at this I don't think the RFL want to lose a SL team in Wakefield, they just want to lose the currently owned team in Wakefield and of course new facilities to go with it!

Wakefield is still a hot-bed of amateur RL and outside of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Leeds and Sheffield the biggest catchment demographic in the North (taking out the North East of course!).

New ownership, new ground and a well run-club (they would have to demonstrate this, like Widnes have) in NL1 then I think the RFL would want them and Castleford in SL.

I think the RFL didn't want to lose any SL club , but have talked their way into a corner , will they do that again ?

I think you are right again re Belle Vue but any new investor will do the sums and I am sure Newmarket would be a big part of the plan, so would have to be willing and able to cover any possible gaps, but if you are getting a new ground for relatively little then it would be worth it. Also, I think your right, any potential investor would have to do his sums based on NL1 in 2012 but a year is a long time and they would be hoping to keep SL status! Even if things went wrong in July they could still change before the end of this coming SL season... after all, tax bills are coming to all clubs and Leeds test case plays a huge part in clubs futures I suspect!

Starbug, don't rule out a 15 team SL. If Wakefield's potential backer has the money, and rumour is that all of the several interested parties have a few bob, then the RFL might not want to lose them by putting their newly owned team out of the top flight!

I present Probiz, Castleford, Halifax and the WCC!

Sounds a fair enough deal , lose the Magic weekend , keep Wakey

Which is why, I have argued that franchises are given in perpetuity, only revoked or threat of revocation when we see and issue like this or Crusaders rears its head.

Teams should be admitted and demoted on the merits of their business.

They wouldnt need to lose MM,

have the WCC played the same Weekend. Maybe even as part of MM. The Champions have their bye week the first week.

The batley case is true, it was well documented a couple of months ago. And yes it seems the same rules don't apply to SL clubs. IIRC the Batley chairman was very annoyed and implied that they were being forced to pay up their much smaller debts in full in order to take pressure off SL clubs. They were told by the RFL that they couldn't register players until they payed up.

I agree with that - no team should be demoted purely on location. Promoted based on location yes, but not demoted.



Then the 7 'home' teams during the MM lose a home game and the revenue they would have received. Would Wigan want to lose their home game against Saints in a particular season?

You can understand why he'd be annoyed. I'd be flipping fuming!

exactly, this half way house that the lower leagues fought for helps no-one. It doesnt quite make the championships a competition on their own, it doesnt quite give the stability SL needs. If you can contribute to SL your promoted, if you cant your not. If you struggle in SL for a long period or have financial meltdown, your out. There is no need for arbitrary time-frames which help no-one

I think they would need to go back to a random draw, but im sure those teams could receive a payment from SL for their trouble.

any idea how the SL clubs are recompensed from the MM - do they receive a guaranteed sum each or is it dependant on gate receipts etc over the two days ?

£0

£0 on top of the Sky money though isn't it!