I've been FD/CFO of decent-sized international trading groups for over 20 years, after 12 years in the profession. I've lost count of the number of times I have had to explain to owners of businesses the probable or potential implications of their failure to follow "the rules". Fortunately, and in every case where trading whilst insolvent was a risk, they usually listened.

The fact that the club (in this case) seemed unable to persuade HMRC to withdraw the petition - or better, not to petition in the first place - is what perplexes me here. That would normally only happen when either a company does not co-operate with HMRC, or puts forward proposals (if any) which HMRC deem unlikely to clear the debt within a reasonable time, or HMRC see some other threat to them getting paid such as fraudulent preference or the owners doing a flit. Unless of course someone was playing brinkmanship and lost, or thought HMRC were bluffing? As I say, perplexed as surely none of these situations can have arisen?

Nobody knows the history to this public part obviously but they usually get un-coporative when they believe there is a risk to their money disappearing.

buisness is not that simple i have run 2 limited companies for the best part of 25 years and a sol trader. i have had 2 winding up orders over the last 25 years settled them and carried on trading successfully 180,000 is nothing compared to the turn over of the company all this is just storm in a tea cup don't know why you are all getting worked up and wetting yourselves its a bill big deal the club will pay it in the next couple of month and some of you will be able to sleep lol lets talk about rl this is boring

What do you mean by "winding-up order"? If the court orders winding-up, then the company is liquidated.

A winding-up hearing at the High Court - to get to an actual hearing, as opposed to settling beforehand - is a very serious issue. And the hearing was only adjourned for 84 days. That is a serious situation, in that if for any reason the rest of the debt is not paid in that time then liquidation would seem a high probability.

And £180k is suignificant compared with the club;s turnover...but its not turnover that pays the bills, its cash. How significant is it compared with the club's cash resources - and remember, the directors have to satisfy themselves that the company has sufficient cash for its needs for at least the next 12 months to avoid the risk of trading whilst insolvent for which they can be made personally liable.

I'm sure your club WILL settle this and sort it. But be under no illusions about its seriousness.

I come to this matter late and have not read every post.
I have no doubt they range from sympathy from some through delight from others and disgust from more than a few.
It may be a storm in a teacup though this being Wakefield I doubt it.
Other clubs may be in the same trouble but will probably deal with it better than us.
We only have 2 feet and it's about time we stop shooting ourselves in them.

A storm in a teacup I think not. High courts involved, in numerous newspapers. Yeah an everyday occourance I would say.

I hope they do pull through it but it will be hard finding the money. As you say its a small portion in relation to turnover but what is our turnover in the off season?

Also will the franchise people consider it a minor issue when reviewing the solvency point?

As i said been through all this type of thing before in my opinion 180k against the turn over is not that significant actually it is turn over that pays the bills the directors do not have to have cash for the company's needs for at least the next 12 months there would be a lot of happy bank managers if that was the case and finally i am sure your right our club will settle the bill and will be OK i myself am an optimise their are enough dome and glum merchants peddling their wears at the moment i am sure there are plenty on your board your club is not without financial worries i think

Season ticket sales, merchandise, etc. If this is insufficient to cover the amount owed, there are other options.



What's to consider? We are not insolvent.

Cool everythings fine then.

You might just want to check out the definition of insolvency. Last time I looked, it was defined as the inability to pay one's debts as and when they fall due. Which is sort of what caused HMRC to petition for winding up?

About 10 years ago the club were in financial trouble (I know it wasn't just 10 years ago and seems to be every year but it is just that time period that is relevant) and offered a 10 year season ticket for £1,000 to get some money in short term - season tickets were about £100 a season then so it was like paying for 10 years at current year prices. The risk was the club could have gone under in the next year or two and the money for the unused part of the 10 year ticket would probably be lost.

I don't know if this helped the club as it got some money in in the short term or was a problem in the long term as it meant less money in future years from those particular fans who bought them but if it did help, it could be worth offering again for the next 10 years at a price of about £1750 - £2000.

Not everyone could afford this but it might get a few thousand quid in quickly for those who could afford it and would be willing to risk it.

Oh dear.

Thanks for enlightening the rest of the global business community regarding where we have been going wrong since time immemorial. The rest of us have always assumed you needed cash to pay your bills, and if you didn't have enough cash you went bust. You must be in pole position now for the next Nobel prize for economics with your ground-breaking discovery.

As you seemingly have no understanding of the concept of Going Concern, nor of the responsibilities of directors in a situation where going concern is an issue. I suggest you go consult either an experienced qualified accountant or a past or present finance director of a decent-sized company. Or maybe I should say another one, since you clearly will not listen to this one who happens to be both.

As for your last comment...the last refuge of the incompetent is to seek to divert attention from one's own difficulties by drawing attention to the difficulties (real or imagined) of your adversary. The matter in question is not the solvency or otherwise of my club, but of yours.

For the avoidance of doubt, nothing I have posted on here is intended to be gloating or an exercise in[i schadenfreude [/i- quite the opposite actually. I only posted to try and help provide some generic facts to help you guys better judge what has happened, and only then because its a field I have some expertise in, and I could see there was a bit of a dearth of hard generic facts. I hope you get this sorted, and I expect you will.

to be honest mate, its time to go away, i think some of your earlier posts were useful, but your past your sell by date, and frankly when you get to be really decent sized, give me a ring, ill say no , but it will be fun!

Quote ="Adeybull"You might just want to check out the definition of insolvency. Last time I looked, it was defined as the inability to pay one's debts as and when they fall due. Which is sort of what caused HMRC to petition for winding up?'" Then look again, or alternatively, consult your legal friend on southstander.com, who managed to clarify the flaws in your last argument for you, before you continue to hang around this thread like a bad smell. The definition of "insolvent" is also "having liabilities that exceed the value of assets". This is clearly not the case. viewtopic.php? ... 8#14709098

Quote ="Adeybull"You might just want to check out the definition of insolvency. Last time I looked, it was defined as the inability to pay one's debts as and when they fall due. Which is sort of what caused HMRC to petition for winding up?'" Then look again, or alternatively, consult your legal friend on southstander.com, who managed to clarify the flaws in your last argument for you, before you continue to hang around this thread like a bad smell. The definition of "insolvent" is also "having liabilities that exceed the value of assets". This is clearly not the case. viewtopic.php? ... 8#14709098

Quote ="RebelRebel"Then look again, or alternatively, consult your legal friend on southstander.com, who managed to clarify the flaws in your last argument for you, before you continue to hang around this thread like a bad smell. The definition of "insolvent" is also "having liabilities that exceed the value of assets". This is clearly not the case. viewtopic.php? ... 8#14709098'" jinxed again! im getting good at this!

Quote ="RebelRebel"Then look again, or alternatively, consult your legal friend on southstander.com, who managed to clarify the flaws in your last argument for you, before you continue to hang around this thread like a bad smell. The definition of "insolvent" is also "having liabilities that exceed the value of assets". This is clearly not the case. viewtopic.php? ... 8#14709098'" jinxed again! im getting good at this!

That's not what I'm saying, and I'm sure you know that.

Do you think we'll fold as a club in 82 days time? Honestly, do you?

there isnt a hope of that, because our balance sheet is fine , just out profit and loss went a bit er..................wayward!

our assets = the whole contacted playing staff to sell
our liabilities with no owned ground = staff bills+ 200k ish

this is nothing, NOTHING!
can we move on???

Yes, I will go away now. You guys have lived up to your reputation of shooting the messenger when faced with inconvenient truths yet again.

Just out of interest, how many of you lot have actually wound up a company? Or signed a balance sheet? Or a circular to shareholders of a plc where you accept personal liability for what happens if it transpires there is NOT enough working capital for the next 12 months? Or worked on corporate insolvencies? Or taken action against a company in the High Court to recover a debt? Or negotiated with HMRC or its predecessors? I have done all of these things, but not to worry - you know better, so that's OK then.

I came in peace (again), trying to help. Despite having sworn that I would not darken your doors on this unpleasant and unwelcoming board ever again. I leave having joined the ranks of those who hold the view that you deserve all the tribulations that you get. Well done.

What a club deserve to go under just because a few of their fans disagreed with you on a MESSAGE BOARD!

Grow Up!

Get a grip I dont think anyones been unpleasant, its a touchy subject for us and I appreciate the insight your bringing and think you ought to take into account the subject when reading responses.

Dark doors and unwelcoming board . Please

no i originally thanked you for a superb post,
which is probabley very near to the mark!
but then you got in to the my gangs better than your gang bit!

and maybe some people know more than you do about the bulls eh???

you have got all up tight because Mr Brown has mentioned that your club has also money worries? so thanks for your info try to take on board that its the last thing we need while we are coming to terms with this news

Could this mess have something to do with this : - www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ap ... -clampdown

Could this mess have something to do with this : - www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ap ... -clampdown

Quote ="12noon"Could this mess have something to do with this : - www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ap ... -clampdown'" no! ours is simple! the other ones are not!

Quote ="12noon"Could this mess have something to do with this : - www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ap ... -clampdown'" no! ours is simple! the other ones are not!

Quote ="12noon"Could this mess have something to do with this : - www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ap ... -clampdown'" [iBanaghan represents Monaghan and also warned that another of his clients, the New Zealand Warriors' scrum half Nathan Fien, will pull out of a proposed move to Huddersfield next season unless the Giants can come up with "government-approved financial arrangements".[/i Hmmmmm.... interesting..... but probably one for the Huddersfield board. As some people have stated on this thread, if image rights are the reason we've been clobbered with this bill, then we're by no means alone, not that this justifies any action we may have taken (from an ethical point of view).

Quote ="12noon"Could this mess have something to do with this : - www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ap ... -clampdown'" [iBanaghan represents Monaghan and also warned that another of his clients, the New Zealand Warriors' scrum half Nathan Fien, will pull out of a proposed move to Huddersfield next season unless the Giants can come up with "government-approved financial arrangements".[/i Hmmmmm.... interesting..... but probably one for the Huddersfield board. As some people have stated on this thread, if image rights are the reason we've been clobbered with this bill, then we're by no means alone, not that this justifies any action we may have taken (from an ethical point of view).