I also wasn't asked for mine last week but if they would have refused to sell me one it would have been my fault for not taking notice of what they put on the website.

Think that's a bit cruel mate, a computer database isn't exactly rocket science is it, if a guy turns up without the required paperwork etc it shouldn't be difficult to Suss out if someone's genuine, especially as we're trying to bring money in for whatever reason!

Nothing changes as Wakefield Trinity. Sounds very worrying

who needs a doommonger like you???????

Correct!! But with the rfl blocking it happening what happens now?

Hope your posting all your thoughts straight onto the Cas forums. Save them copy and pasting them.

This may sound a little ignorant as I'm not entirely "clued-up"

but surely, when WTW wrote off their debts, they screwed over any investors who had money owed.

If they do the same again and AG starts up a new company, won't it have a detrimental affect on future investment?

....that's not me being s tool, it's genuinely how I'd see it but I dunno if it's entirely correct as it seems pretty basic

From the bits I've read, AG settled the RL related debts before the RFL would approve his ownership, he also paid some other creditors. One particular company has taken advantage of this 'good will gesture' and is persuing the new company for the monies owed to the from the old company even though 1873 is under no obligation to do so.

The HMRC winding up order has been resolved according to AG and the Macron one is a dispute. We'll know more this Thursday I guess.

In the words of Gandalf the Grey - "Keep it secret, keep it save".

Sorry i just dont buy all this BS.

If AG has left himself wide open to be chased for debts by the old company,hes a fool and the lawyers that drew up the contracts of purchase are incompetent.
If 1873 is [uunder no legal obligation [/uit ends there.

So all this comes down to what you believe.

We heard all the excuses about the ccjs earlier in the year,ranging from disputes over quality,service,wrong addresses and overlooked,when in reality it appears to have been a case of quite simply no money to pay the bills.
We had supporters suggesting it was an ok way to run a business racking up ccj after ccj,with some of the more ridiculous comments ranging from......."Its the best way to settle a dispute" to "Its easy for people to register a ccj against you".When the reality was staring people in the face.

Im not being wise after the event,but in my opinion this pack of cards has been teetering on the edge of collapse for months.Im even still optimistic that someone will pull it out of the fire,but in my personal opinion AG bit off more than he can chew.

To be honest don't give a flock what Cas think, they have 5x more debts than us even if it is to just one person. More interested in how we're going to sort ourselves out and be a viable forse in sl.

You are wrong on a couple of points there Mole Rat. Cas Tigers debts of just over 2 million have been built up over a period of decades. WTW have racked up debts of 1.5 million in 2 seasons. That hardly equates to 5X more. Our debts are not only to one person either - granted Jack Fulton is the main one but there are others - Richard Wright been another.

As I said, thats from what I have read, I haven't a clue whats going on.

I wouldn't have though AG would pay anyone unless he was obliged to do so - unless further investment could be generated from keeping "good will" payments.....

I dunno, I don't understand how this can happen. It just stems from sloppy management

This was a point spectacularly missed by that BBC report by George Riley at the start of the season. Yes, a club may be in debt, but a debt to a director (such a Fulton) isn't one to worry about as the likelihood of it ever being called in is miniscule. It's like Chelsea on a tiny scale!

As said. Jack Fulton loves the club and won't ever call on his debt if he feared it would have a detrimental effect. What he is trying to do is make the club sustainable by getting the right people in to increase revenue streams to save him pumping more money in

The money to Jack has built up over about the past 10 years (We made decent profits in the NL) and we haven't racked up 1.5 Mil in 2 years. That is worrying. Not from a gloating point of view. It smacks of bad management.

And baring in mind we own our own ground as well is taken into consideration. We don't do too bad

Well I was wise before the event and don't I feel good about it - not.

I said WTRLFC like a number of RL clubs was unsustainable in the new economic world we live in and that AG would die the same long horrible death Ted did. Of course I was lampooned for not being riddled with blind optimism but hey.

What I can't get my head around is the timescale and only the Cas fan has picked up on that. Two years to run a fresh club to the brink of bankruptcy and despite what people chose to believe (myself included at the start) CCJ's do generally indicate a company on the brink of going under. Two years to get into this state honestly baffles me - even taking everything into account and being generous with the new club I'm stuffed as to how they have done that - especially off the back of good gates and various initiatives. Remember that 1 million debt was posted pre Eric France which is the most obvious disaster we have had.

Anyone who can say what has happened knows way mere than me.

Same lot running the club under Glover that ran it under Richardson = same result.

Should the worst happen I doubt JE will get another gig at a RL club.

Only if/when we have new owners he will!

On a note about the debt it is possible this had not just been built up in the past 2 years but as part of the legacy debt? Firstly it would be impossible to borrow that sort of money in the current climate and there is no way we could owe hmrc that much in two years given the turnover so vat cannot be that high and wages so tax and NICs cannot be as well

Some of the previous debt was agreed to be paid off so it may be part of that, however I fail to see confirmation anywhere that the debt is £1.5m


I know last years accounts showed a loss of approx. £1m and we are around 1/2 way through the following year so it's not totally unfeasible that we have accumulated an extra £500k but I can't find anywhere in print that it has been confirmed that this is the amount we owe, the only place I've seen it is on here, the cas forum and the nut job funny farm forum.
Can someone point me in the direction of official confirmation of our current debt please?

Aren't these three almost becoming one of the same?

My suspicion is that the whole aim of the club is to keep the plates spinning until Newmarket comes off, and from then on they can attract better crowds (hopefully), better corporate sponsorship, income-generating ways of using the stadium, all at a lower cost than running Belle Vue. It is something of a coincidence, however, that the new company is formed at the time of Super League re-organisation, and so my guess is that it is a safety net in the event of either Newmarket delays being too long for the club to handle or relegation at the end of next year, so that they can rebuild in Newmarket in a lower division but without being hindered by top flight debts.

I'm only guessing, but is there a possibility that this is an example of foresight and good management?

So you feel that me still having the money is better than the club having it . CLOWN.