Heard tonight from a source high up at the RFL that the deal isn't done and we could see a switch in owner as hmrc want six months up front and Chalmers is stalling.

Damn, you must have really wanted that job.

Do you have any idea whatsoever how limited companies are actually run???

How can the HMRC want 6 months up front when they won't no what the tax bill will be as the company doesn't currently have any staff.

You just have to laugh!

Six months of what?
PAYE? The company doesn't have any employees yet.
VAT? The company hasn't sold a single season ticket yet.
Corp tax? The company has even started trading yet.

The previous company was liquidated. This is a brand new start, there is absolutely no reason why this company should be in special measures with HMRC.

Having shut down and then set up new companies the following day ( yes I took HMRC for money but much less than I had suffered due to customers companies screwing me ) I've never known them to request up front payments , they are usually strict initially on payments being on time , but that's about it

I think we can safely say KCNBABT is not a players dad

A Bulls banterer called King Karl spouts a lot of the same stuff.

Don't know about being a player's dad, I'm thinking that he doesn't have a dad.

Excellent. I know exactly who k is now.

Oh go on, spill....

There was reference on the other thread to Gurus Beard. Was that not rumoured to be Duffy?

See pm.

Indeed. But William Eve (aka Jeff iirc) is a troll par excellence.

KCNBABT was happy to out Mark Moore as Braveheart.

Just saying.

Come on! We all deserve to know who he is? He's done it to others so out him!

He's that lads dad.


My ar#e

I would also like to no who it is.

I wood of thought you wood no who he is. There's know point been on hear otherwise.

Actually HMRC now have the power to demand security over anything they assess to be the future liability. They can demand it in the form of assets, cash deposits or bank bond. It is entirely at HMRC's discretion what they can request. It is to be used specifically where :-

1. They failed to comply with their tax obligations in current or previous incarnations of any organisation.

2. HMRC are aware that directors have been involved in or connected to multiple business failures.

HMRC are fully aware of points 1 and 2 in regards to Chalmers. The moment he registered the new company over here a big red flag appeared.

But the rfl say they are fit and proper. .....

... and the Fax fans say we've been favoured as part of our fast track to SL thing

So both a player's dad and an HMRC employee. What are the chances?