Bull!

Be careful!

Totally agree, but the answers on this will never come from the club.

There's bits we can try to piece together from various resources (which is something I will be doing a bit of digging on tomorrow) but the only way we can realistically expect to get an unbiased opinion is for the truth to come out from any Administrator that is appointed.

Unfortuantely, this just means he would be increasing his fees and that is the very first thing that they consider how much they should dig into the club's dealings - will the ultimate outcome justify the potential costs of investigating?

Do you know what, I do not think it is. Im pretty sure that is what you said when I questioned What the make up of the finance on Newmarket was. Anyway glad to see you have joined the debate. Will you be clarifying any of the issues mentioned.

Danny Lockwood?

RDM it does not take a genius to do some simple maths. Say last year we had a net turnover around the £2mill mark including Sky monies. The payroll including club employees and players would have amounted to no more than £1.5 mill (plus we received plenty of grants as well).

Then why have we run up a 350k trading debt plus the 160k that Sir Rodney loaned the club.

I'm not sure that any insurance company would pay out because the other party to a contract simply didn't want to pay what had been agreed. Don't forget, Sainsbury's DID pay Ted - albeit only 10% of what was due under the contract. BUT to get to the stage where money was paid, Ted would have had to agree to the original contract being waived & again, the solicitor's insurer wouldn't be paying out for that.

Wow. Watch a bit of telly and come back to this.

I've asked the question "Who owns Belle Vue" and not got an answer, now I know why.

On behalf of the Working Party establishing the Supporters Trust we will continue to seek an answer and try to establish the truth and let Supporters know if we find anything out.

It is nothing of the sort - never has been!

Not at this time - I do not have the answers required, but as part of the Trust, I will be seeking answers.

You ought to stick to interfering with hedgehogs in the bushes of thornes park with your dad. You " I'd hate to see Wakefield get a new stadium obsessed freak"
TRINITY FOREVER

If it's fraudulent behaviour he is duty bound to forensically investigate. Also the links with Teds other companies which are presently subject of an IVA I would think a closer inspection would be inevitable.

I work in this very area. The Solicitors all have to carry professional indemnity insurance so that if their advice is negligent and causes their client a loss (or they steal from their clients), there is insurance to pay for any claim against the firm.

It is a fact that if the Solicitor was negligent, his PI insurer would pay out and they would do it as soon as possible to avoid incurring interest and legal fees.

The fact he accepted 10% from Sainsburys would be nothing to do with his action against his own Solicitors. His claim against his own Solicitors would be on the basis he had to accept 10% because they drew the contract up negligently meaning he lost a considerable amount of money.

The simple answer is I don't know without seeing the full accounts for 2008-2010 to establish what's happened where.

What I do know is that the majority of the grants were to various community schemes that have been created as individual legal entities. The reason for this is that most of the grants were only available to "Not For Profit" bodies. Although WTRLFC has failed to make a profit for the last few years it is still a "For Profit" entity in theory.

To clarify the HMRC position, the winding up petition filed in July 2010 was cleared off by what SRW loaned the club. It's common practice for companies operating under a winding up order not to pay the further money due to the creditor that's seeking the order (in our case HMRC) until it is decided upon. At the same time as SRW's money paid off the original debt, an agreeement was put in place to clear the "new" HMRC debt that had accrued. Crusaders went bust within a couple of weeks of this agreement being put in place & HMRC decided that they wanted all the money we owed them.

The new winding up notice was served on the club at the beginning of December and the court date of 2 Feb was set last week.

The accounts for the year ending Decemebr 2010 don't have to be filed at Companies House until the end of September this year - assuming the current company is still around by then!!!

I think you'll find he's helping us get a stadium in his own way?!

There's a huge difference between drawing up a contract negligently & drawing up a contract that is acceptable to both parties. I expect that Sainsbury's would have required the wording to include sufficient room for manouvere if they changed their mind at a later date.

The solicitors who are more likely to have acted "negligently" are those who advised the bank that Ted secured a loan with using the contract as security & to whom he owed the debt that led to his IVA.

Don't bother TRB

Nobody will believe the answers you get.

Leave it to the Administrator this week.

So on what basis did he think he could sue his Solicitors? Plus if your assumption were right, the bank could sue their Solciitors and get the money back that way instead of peeing in the wind trying to get it from Ted.

Anyway, I have inadvertently derailed an important thread so wont comment anymore on Ted's own personal woes.

Hopefully if your going to represent the "Trust" in the correct manner, you wont listen and accept the usual bulls**t that you portray as been gospel from the board like you have done over the past few years.


Anyway, whenever theres a big thread on here, theres normally a comment on the Wakefield site within a few hours.... cue Elston and his cue card....
"Oh its all rubbish, Wakefield have never done anything of the sort. By the way we are still selling Gold Memberships at only 180 quid which gives you 5% off Subway on a Sunday night after 10pm. Get yours now and be strong, be united, be Wakefield. What was the question again ?"

We are Wakefield, Together we are skint. (Or not.) Isle of Man Wildcats…a point for geographical proximity there!

Whatever happens now we have to move forward together

Does that include Sub of the day? What happens if i decide to go for the meal deal option?

So many questions

I agree that the Administrator would be duty bound to investigate potentially fraudulent acts by a director of the company. The fall in property over the last few years (particularly for development sites) is such that the end result of WTRLFC Ltd receiving £250k less than was owed by Cala Homes (on the original contract that is the best part of 4 years old) would not be considered as a "transaction at undervalue".

IMO the only way a "fraud" could be established is if there was common directorship between the original vendor (WT) & the original purchaser (Cala Homes) - which there isnt!

How would that apply to the sale between Wakefield Trinity and the Tillion Partnership as according to the original poster thats who owns Belle Vue so they must have bought it from WT.

Interesting times ahead for the administrator.

As for us, well, it seems we now have no assets whatsoever, and consequently, no club.

Oh to be a fly on the wall.

It does seem as if you are going to need one Very Wealthy benefactor in the coming days.

I mean a benefactor - not someone who is just a loan mechant!