I think it's pretty clear to us all that the club has been run on a shoestring and we've walked along a knife edge financially. We’ve pulled up trees and produced rabbits and doves from every top hat in the county in order to survive. The unexpected revoking of the payment plan and demand for payment up front is something we just cannot service. The PI removed a planned £350K from the operating budget, The RFL refused to help via a £350K loan even after they had done the opposite for Crusaders (£700K). The uncertainty over our franchise seems to have cost us a new very wealthy backer and sponsorship has been hard to sell due to the same uncertainty.

This £700k loan to Crusaders keeps getting mentioned a lot. Is there any actual evidence of it?


I'm aware (from news reports and RFL statements) that Crusaders owed money to the RFL. And that an agreement was reached on payment (possibly part-payment) of it as a condition of their readmittance to SL this year. I'm not aware that the debt was as a result of a loan (apart from comments on these boards) - the RFL seemed to imply it was owed for services rendered. I'm also not aware of a source for the figure of £700k (apart from people writing it down on these boards).

You could hire one of the top consultancy firms in the world for 6 months and it wouldn't cost you GBP 700k for what effectively was one mans time

Dealing with HMRC and their "time to pay" agreements on a regular basis, they can't and wouldn't reverse any written agreement because of a third party matter.

The only way the agreement would cease to be in place is if the terms weren't adhered to (terms which will always include the payment of all future tax liabilities, together with the agreed instalments against arrears, as and when they fall due).

Interesting, so are the BOD still not being entirely honest. They need to issue a statement saying exactly what the money is to be used for.

The 700K was the costs run up by the RFL in effectivly running a SL club from its last days ay Bridgend till it was up and running at Wrexham. It was all kept quiet at the time and when anyone dared to ask question they were quickly shot down as anti expansionists. It would have probably all been washed under the carpet had they not gone bankrupt.

I wouldn't mind betting that due to this being the sum it cost the RFL last time, even more money has been given this time and no one has got the wind of it so far.

I know this is nothing to do with our plight but I hope it helps.

Quote ="tb"This £700k loan to Crusaders keeps getting mentioned a lot. Is there any actual evidence of it? I'm aware (from news reports and RFL statements) that Crusaders owed money to the RFL. And that an agreement was reached on payment (possibly part-payment) of it as a condition of their readmittance to SL this year. I'm not aware that the debt was as a result of a loan (apart from comments on these boards) - the RFL seemed to imply it was owed for services rendered. I'm also not aware of a source for the figure of £700k (apart from people writing it down on these boards).'" I don't know if the £700k figure is correct or not, but the 'loan' is the advance of funds to the club at the end of 2009 referred to in this article.... m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/dec/ ... pe=article The Wrexham people agreed to repay this funding and absolved Samuel of his liability. Needless to say, the advance funding was not repaid. The RFL have now converted it into an interest free loan over 10 years according to reports. So its not so much a case of the RFL giving Crusaders 'new' cash but allowing them to convert a current liability into a long-term one.

Quote ="tb"This £700k loan to Crusaders keeps getting mentioned a lot. Is there any actual evidence of it? I'm aware (from news reports and RFL statements) that Crusaders owed money to the RFL. And that an agreement was reached on payment (possibly part-payment) of it as a condition of their readmittance to SL this year. I'm not aware that the debt was as a result of a loan (apart from comments on these boards) - the RFL seemed to imply it was owed for services rendered. I'm also not aware of a source for the figure of £700k (apart from people writing it down on these boards).'" I don't know if the £700k figure is correct or not, but the 'loan' is the advance of funds to the club at the end of 2009 referred to in this article.... m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/dec/ ... pe=article The Wrexham people agreed to repay this funding and absolved Samuel of his liability. Needless to say, the advance funding was not repaid. The RFL have now converted it into an interest free loan over 10 years according to reports. So its not so much a case of the RFL giving Crusaders 'new' cash but allowing them to convert a current liability into a long-term one.

They would if it was within the bounds of a consortium agreement with, say, a sport's governing body and decided to pull out of that agreement.

In fairness I have not read all the previous 14 pages of posts so if someone has raised this then my apologies.
If this were to suceed and 500 people owned 50% of the club then would those 500 people be responsible for 50% of the clubs debts ?
I am one of the £25 shareholders and could be interested in participating but (and it is a big but) there is a lack of real information.
I was unable to attend the shareholders meeting for personal reasons though I would probably still be as confused if I had been there.
It appears that people are expected to agree because of their love for the club. Well maybe there has been one too many false dawns and at some stage you feel like shrugging your shoulders and walking away. This is sad but true.
I don't want to see our club die but my enthusiasm is wanning and I doubt I am alone.

bet me to it, looks that way to me.

Could said terms include the Governing body (RFL) doing all it can to dissuade its member from accepting administration as a way out of paying debts and taxes?

Could the Governing bodies actions in almost supporting this course of action be a serious breach of those terms?

In these types of matters does the HMRC view sport as it views every other business?

Does this shift in the RFLs stance on its member clubs entering into Administration place its member clubs on the "bad risk" list at the HMRC?

When I say "third party" I mean outside of the terms of the original agreement. I would be surprised if the original agreement included any reference to another legal entity's (company/club) tax position, which Wakefield has no direct control over.

Remember, this is a limited company with it's own creditors/employees etc - if this specific limited company has a plan to clear tax arrears over time, and is sticking to it, I'd be surprised if HMRC pulled the rug because of the plight of another company.

It would be akin to, say, one Fiat dealership franchise reaching an agreement for repayment of tax arrears, then HMRC reneging on the agreement (despite the franchise sticking to the terms of the agreement) because another Fiat franchise went bust somewhere else in the country.

I just can't see it really.

The ordinary £1 shares bit is just its residual value not its actual value, it doest actually count for a huge amount. Otherwise it would give the Wildcats a market Cap of £10m, which is a ludicrous valuation.

As such i dont think they would be selling the shares in blocks of 1000, just blocks of £1000, that could equate to 100 shares or 1 million shares. What would be useful would be to see what % of the club is being sold through these shares.

I am currently doing some work for an organisation that is preparing for a VAT tribunal worth in excess of £10m and they are part of a consortium agreement with HMRC with other similar organisations.

Under a collective consortium umbrella they all have an agreement with HMRC that they receive certain leeway in various tax aspects. However, the agreement is that if one member of the consortium reneges on their obligations then HMRC reserve the right to effectively cancel the agreement and the other members lose their rights under it as well. Simply, a case of if one mucks us about then we come after all of you. Each is a separate business with its own obligations but collectively they benefit from certain advantages until/unless one of the members breaks the agreement.

I don't know if its the case in this matter but its certainly plausible that HMRC could have had such an agreement with the RFL or SLE.

You're talking about a whole different ball game there, though. A couple of hundred grand tax arrears is chicken feed.

But if the HMRC only agreed to allow Rugby League clubs the benefit of a payment plan based on solid assurances from the RFL that it would vehemently seek to deter any club from entering Administration with extremely strong sanctions.

Then the RFL not only fails to adhere to this but actively works with a member club as it moves into Administration in order to ensure that clubs existence for selfish purposes.

The HMRC would be entitled to withdraw its support for all Member clubs based on the lack of sanctions from the Governing body

[url=http://www.denbighshirefreepress.co.uk/news/95461/wrexham-crusaders-winding-up-order-adjourned.aspxSeems to me a third party paid HMRC for the Crusaders[/url

Really?

I'm genuinely puzzled how you read a third party paying off a Crusaders debt to HMRC in that report …

What's this about and when is it scheduled for?

Back dated image rights and I don't know when it's scheduled for although i'm sure IL's pockets will be sufficiently deep enough for it to have little effect on Wigan.

Leeds are taking HMRC to court regarding image rights payments - Rugby Union have agreed a deal with HMRC which requires them to pay only 15% of the tax owed. HMRC have denied Rugby League the same option. Leeds are the test case because they have both a Union and League team, with players on exactly the same contracts.

I don't think its a secret,

The HMRC closed a tax loophole regarding the payment of image rights to sportsmen and they have since chased the football clubs, the Rugby union clubs and I believe cricket. Each of those sports managed to negotiate a settlement with the taxman which allowed them to pay just 15% of what was owed. They were able to negotiate this because the taxman viewed those sports as having a national profile and therefore important enough to the national psyche for them to be treated as a special case.

When it came to the case for rugby league the taxman did not view our sport as important enough to warrant a special arrangement and demanded the full amount owing. As mentioned earlier for some clubs this is a sum well into seven figures. The Rugby football league have chosen/asked Leeds Rhinos to fight a test case on behalf of all rugby league clubs. If Leeds are successful then I would expect rugby league clubs to pay the same 15% which for some clubs will still be a sizeable amount. If Leeds rhinos lose the test case there is a strong rumour within the game that every super league club and maybe every member club will move into Administration en masse.

See The Clan's post.

The case is ongoing but don't know when the hearing is scheduled for if indeed it is scheduled for Court yet.

I thought the ruling was that a PLAYER can only claim "image rights" at a maximum 15% of his salary.

Rumour has it that some players were claiming a figure closer to 50%.

In the case of rugby union the HMRC reached an agreement with Premier Rugby to cap the amount owed at 15%

I believe the same was agreed with cricket

the Premier league clubs are in negotiations now

rugby league is in the middle of a test case