I am hoping that the investors come in sooner now that this news has been announced but I am extremely pi$$ed off but really hurt at the thought of our beloved club going under

giving your honest opinion is not trolling.

the RFL changed the apparant 'rules' on franchising relating to clubs going into admin.

Before the welshies announced their 1st money issues the rules were,

'any clubs that have enterered administration will have their licences taken away'

this was then changed as soon as one of the RFL's 'experiment teams' went belly up.

They never expected it to help out Wakey, but it did. But i bet my bottom dollar that the same rule change for the welshies would have been brought in to keep the Bulls in the top league.

We will see, but next year Bradford will still be in SL, and will be given a licence next time arround - having got into £1.5 million debt!

The fact is they should be punished for this. Not the fans or the players, but the club.

i wouldnt worry though, i hear youve already been penciled in for 2/3 3D games next year on SKYs scedule.

Nail. On. Head.

For fear of repetition, but it's clearly necessary because it was treated with some element of disdain in my initial posting, the club still owe HMRC SIGNIFICANT amounts of money, primarily due to none payment of VAT over a period of 2 years. The directors in situ previously were aware of this (and indeed the current CEO) and that concerns me. Concerns me because at no point have they been honest about it; and that's simply not right having thoroughly misled the fans, along with a couple of prominent posters on here. And that's a genuine shame.

Similarly, I would make zero assumptions on the premise that administration may be entered into. Caisley, Coulby etc may have ironically decided the club is non-salvageable given the high levels of debt (which they may not have been privy to their full extent). In more simple terms, even should they wish to take a huge gamble and attempt to obtain greater number of shares, it doesn't require Carol Vorderman to determine that 100% of nothing, is erm, nothing. Given that, should any party come forward attempting to obtain singular major shareholding, good luck to them, because I'm damn sure few of us would actually take such a huge risk for a club that has malfunctioned and ignored it for years.

Administration is rarely ideal, however a business and shareholders are there to protect their own interests the same as any of us protect our work and family interests. The "well the little businessman is the one who suffers" is a typically overly emotional fable that is trotted out when in reality, and certainly in this instance it is HMRC. And let's be honest, the're hardly struggling for liquidity. Had it been addressed in the first instance, we wouldn't be in this unfortunate position.

I expect little comment from a review team who are trying to salvage a fairly dire situation. Why would anybody reveal their hand in a game of cards; and let's be honest, that's precisely what any debt mitigation is all about.

Not bitter then ?

Which would be great if you were able to articulate yourself in a coherent manner and not spurious Orwellian guff.

Sorry you'll hear very little from me too - I am on holiday in Cyprus.

Ohhh Sorry

GB - you have stated on here - think it was you, my apologies if not - that the club had had some ridiculous absurd notion that memberships were not subject to VAT and therefore no VAT was declared or paid on the memberships for the last two seasons?

I think it may have been you because you appear to allude to that again above?

If it WAS you, that knowledge (if it indeed be true) can only have been known to a Very few people. But leaving your own identity aside, can I ask you a straight question? To your knowledge, DID the club not account for VAT on memberships for the last two years? And If so, does that VAT remain unpaid, or was it paid out of the lease sale proceeds and therefore largely account for the Black Hole that even you will acknowledge I have been going on about for months?

And, for the total avoidance of doubt, if it ever becomes clear that what I outlined above DID happen (and the only place I have heard or read such is on here) then we were very very badly lied to and misled.

But so far I have seen nothing to confirm that story. Are you able to do so, or refute it?

I am honoured you are ignoring the beers, sun lounger and ice creams to chat to me



Correct, I did indeed make that very statement. The club avoided payment of VAT on season tickets by definition of Hood believing that terming them "memberships" somehow exonerated the club from any kind of liability. Quite why he arrived at this spectacularly farcical notion only he will know. Similarly why this wasn't challenged by others, is even more concerning.

To my knowledge no VAT was paid from the lease sale to HMRC for this specific large amount, because quite simply, they both ignore the clear obligation to pay and indeed were seeking to challenge the outstanding and significant, monies.

You have indeed mentioned the black hole repeatedly, and it is one of the things we have agreed on. I am more concerned this "hole" is both repaired and is closed to some degree.

I maintain faith that we will get out of this and to some degree, right now for the future of the club, brickbats, blame and toy throwing will solve little. I have been extremely critical of Hood, Bennett etc, but we are where we are and I'm pretty much done with it. They've made a spectacular b0llox of it, let's join metaphorical hands, bunch together and solve this huge mess.

Have a beer for me

After reading that I feel like a few beers myself.

Adeybull, just get the KEO in and enjoy hallumi rolls

"united we stand , divided we fall"

I know it's an old one but the fans seem to have got it

Exactly, implicit in my post. No strategy...or is there?

GB, when you posted about the membership VAT issue, I doubted not that there was such an issue but that Hood would have taken such a step without advice, for which there should be a PI policy (but theres no chance of any payout on that!), or if he didnt then he was negligent not to cover his backside. And of course I dont expect PnA to advise on teh future, my point is that the only bit of the strategy we can see is the statement of intent to enter Administration.

Interestingly theres no major drop in Paye and other taxes balances in creditors due within one year in the 2010 accounts from 2009, indeed they are nearly identical at just over £110K, which subject to VAT quarter ends etc does not tally with the two year timeframe, tho there is from 2008 to 9 a drop from c. £200k to £110k. As I recall the first pledge combined cheap "next season" tickets and a number of deals including 5 and 10 year and lifelong...membership. Do you know if ALL of these were nil/zero rated or just for example the lifelong ones? Its just that say gate sales are £2m a year, thats say £800K VAT over 2 years, which makes for a massive hole that surely would have lead to admin straight off when the books were opened up to PnA, and would have led to a more intransigent stance about paying the lease VAT in monthly instalments, if you believe Hood. Thats the trouble with black holes: no light can get out. (Post Script: just googled, 2011 pledge was for 10000 "memberships", but that is still no indication of whether lifetime, 10 years etc would be differently accounted for VAT).

What part of my previous post was incoherent?

i really do feel for you Bulls fans, well the ones that will buy a season ticket next year at full price at least.

The rest of you can go back to watching football.

I find the VAT issue just too incredible to believe. Mainly because it it is true and the VAT liability had been established, wouldnt the new Board have been shouting it from the roof tops?

an articulate post with no words - brilliant!

Because Peter, it's true. As you well know.

You also know that HMRC wouldn't issue a winding up order if an AGREEMENT had been made (particularly if you are suggesting you 'arranged' this some months ago) over a 5 month period. That tells me much of what I need to know.

Shame on you for your continual lies that has got us to this position. You might be fooling yourself, but you ain't fooling me or the vast majority of Bulls fans.

I dont know how they have been able to miss paying vat for 2 years.
They would of have reminders and late payment fees added over that time.

Well GB, think PH knows what "calumny" means. Because you obviuosly don't!

Likewise - if the club had suddenly gone from being a VAT creditor to a VAT debtor, I would be very surprised if the HMRC did not come out to investigate before making any VAT repayments back to the club. I had a similar situation at work and before HMRC released the VAT repayment they insisted on conducting an audit to ensure there was no impropriety.

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18437695[/url

The above article goes into a little more detail, but contains no mention of any additional VAT money owing, apart from the sale of the stadium.

"The club owes HM Revenue & Customs £90,000 in payroll tax, plus £250,000 in VAT from the sale of the stadium.

The Bulls need more than £1m to survive to the end of the season, despite recently raising £500,000 through fan pledges, gate receipts and an auction.

It now has two weeks to raise funds or find new investment.

The figures were passed to BBC Radio Leeds by Brendan Guilfoyle of The P&A Partnership, the company brought in by the club to review the state of its finances."

Peter, your ability to perform a role as 'Bottom' in a Shakespearean play continues with your malapropisms.

Since calumny refers to slander (and not libel, which the written word relates to) your use of the term is thoroughly incorrect.

Secondly, it would only be either slander or libel if it was untrue and you chose to challenge that legally. Be my guest.

Oh, and learn to spell "obviously".

You continue to be full of ironies. And untruths.

I think the insinuation is that they never included VAT on the season tickets, hence HMRC wouldn't have initially known there was a VAT liability to send them reminders about. .