Wouldn't hmrc have picked up on fact a business, which was previously paying vat on 10k+ gate receipts (x13 games per yr), and had been making similar sized payments for the previous decade, was suddenly paying next to nothing. Would have thought that would be caught in first yr at the longest.

It `d have been a darn sight less than a year.When we had a business we paid our vat every 3 months and we never dared be late .You get regular letters telling you about late payments and the fines you get if you do not pay on time.They are not hollow threats and some of our friends ran up against them so ours were always paid promptly.Even when they took their time to repay money owed to us we always paid what we owed them promptly.

Correct mat. The vat mans computers do sense checks on returns and if a figure is outside whatever parameters they set you get a phone call asking for an explanation and a date for an inspection. the question is the parameters they set: in my experience it is when you make a reclaim after consistently paying, but that was a good few years ago and they may well have fine tuned the parameters. certainly the Bulls would be a big reduction that would eventually have been picked up in an inspection visit, even then the club might have fought it however googling bradford bulls VAT appeal does not come up with anything.

PS just googled "VAT on club memberships" and OK i've only skimmed it: although it says that rugby league clubs are a sporting activity to which it applies, it also says that social or NON PLAYING MEMBERSHIP subscriptions are STANDARD RATED, which is in VAT Notice 701/45 (revised Aug 2011). It also says that commercial enterprises are not eligible bodies, and I dont think Bulls Holdings have secretly converted to a charity.

So there it is. My instincts based on a rule of thumb calculation, subsequently voiced by another poster, that two years VAT would cause instant admin are supported by the VAT Notices. you would have to be a real weasel of a VAT advisor to get anything significant past the rules. Anybody see a credible weasel at Odsal a couple of years ago?

Adey can you come back please!

Anyone hear Coulby on Radio Leeds?

Apprantly PAYE wasn't paid for April and HMRC gave the club 24 hours to pay up.

This may be the case but in my experience of dealing with HMRC they've actually been one of the more reasonable creditors to deal with. I honestly have not come across such a thing. Still that's what we are being told!

Everything that comes out of the club leaves me with more questions than answers. I really don't know what to think so I'm avoiding all this and will just concentrate on chearing the lads on next week. I'll find out soon enough what's happening.

No, it happened before and it's actually what tipped Wakefield, who also had a standing agreement with HMRC.

The stitch up between the RFL and Crusaders effectively robbed the HMRC out of what had previously been agreed (by Crusaders, underwritten by the RFL).

Hence HMRC revoked all standing agreements with RFL members (e.g. Wakefield), and will not make further staged payment agreements.

Wakefield's dept became payable overnight (bye bye Mr Richardson, hello administrator), and no leeway will be given to other club's now.

You owe, you pay.

Didn't the administrators for Wakey actually sell players to keep the club going until a new buyer was found. Either to produce cash to keep it as a going concern or to reduce the debt to make it more attractive to a new buyer.

Could this be the result for Bradford, if administrators come in would one of their first ideas be to start looking at that alleged 6 figure offer from Warrington? Or does it depend who calls in the administrators, ie the club or the HMRC???

from memory glover either wasnt in the frame or had only just shown an interest at point admin were called in at wakey. he had to pass fit and proper person checks at RFL before he bought the club hence a delay of a week or two and admininstrators selling players.

Bit different situation here as its going to caisley (or a consortium fronted by him) who takeover and he's already passed the fit and proper person test, which was confirmed by RFL in a T&A article a few weeks ago. So the delay in the changeover should be much reduced.

HMRC cannot appoint administrators. No unsecured creditor can.

The directors can; a debenture holder can intervene and see their own nominee appointed. But the whole point of administration is to protect the business from its creditors while a sale as some sort of a going concern is sought.

The April PAYE was due 22 May (if paid electronically) so that is totally down to the new board. I suspect the old board timed their standing down quite carefully.

And yes, HMRC ARE normally reasonable when you are a struggling business doing your best. But they have had their fingers burned so many times in the leisure sector in general, and with sports clubs in particular, that they have totally lost patience.

Know what? I do not blame HMRC one bit. Why the hell should a sports club use money it has deducted from employee salaries, or collected from customers - money that was never its own in the first bloody place - to fund its operations? I have said in the past that IMO it is tantamount to theft if the business goes under and such monies are not paid, and it would be totally hypocritical of me to suggest the Bulls should be any exception. It is a bloody disgrace, whoever is responsible.

BBC Look North: #Bradford Bulls director tells @harrylooknorth about possible investment to save the club after winding-up order. More at 10.25 BBC1.

It was only days for Glover who agreed to buy the club but whilst the RFL were seeking to see if he was fit and proper the Administrator made staff redundant and sold players to keep essential staff and also torecoup there fees. Although not 100% I believe I have read somewhere that from an off field point of view the Bulls are not very lean people wise employing a lot of backroom staff. Wakey are now extremely lean. Expect to lose players and and staff. Unless the Knight comes over the Hill and is happy to chuck money away, the problem is still the fact that you have shareholders who are enemies!

Agreed, too many clubs have used this route to avoid paying what they owe, HMRC have a duty above and beyond Bradford Bulls, if they cant find people willing to pay off the debts and invest, for relatively nothing in return then Bradford fans really do need to realise how serious this is. But.... you probably won't fall too far, you will most likely be given every chance by SL Clubs and the RFL to re-enter as The Bulls 2012, but you still need a sound business plan or someone to bankroll you in the future, cheap season tickets and free banquets for anyone with a Northern car sticker will be a thing of the past, unless Ken Davy gets bored at the Giants.

"Incredibullman": GB (who some state is Simon Fox and others state must be Chris Caisley, not least because of the style and tone) has stated categorically that the club did not believe it had a VAT liability for the last two years' memberships. And that, as a result, is in dispute with HMRC over this issue but has not paid any such VAT to HMRC.

You (who GB suggests is Peter Hood, who I have reasoned COULD be PH but have assumed it could quite possibly be Andrew Bennett although there are a couple of other possibilities) are implying that he is totally wrong.

Can you state unequivocally that he IS totally wrong, and that VAT output tax WAS returned in respect of and WAS paid in respect of membership/season ticket sales for the last two years?

If you can and do, then one of you - and since you both seem party to considerable inside information, you must each surely be either one of the principal protagonists or a spokesman for such or else the mother of all Walter Mitty characters - has to be lying.

Well?

bulls if anything employ too few backroom staff. all the community staff are actually employed by bulls foundation which is a seperate business entity to the main club so arent a factor. Reason we have a big payroll each month is because there are a lot of casual staff employed on matchdays due to the sheer size of the stadium. In terms of actual salaried staff that a administrator could make redundant to save money theres not much in way of savings to be made. If we do end up going into admin I fully expect us to lose players.

HMRC's proposed action suggests that the sum involved is a serious amount, whether it be for Salary deductions (Paye & Nic) ,VAT of other contractual matters
It also suggests that there has been a long correspondence between HMRC and the Club to settle their liabilities, which the club have not done
Clearly these liabilities have accrued over a period of some time during which the BOD must have been aware that penalties and interest might be addded

Adeybull's comment is spot on!! These guys (Guru's Beard and Incrdibullman) are clearly insiders on either side of the BOD divide - so one of you is at best being economical with the truth or at worst lying to a group of people that rescued this club 2 months ago.

Shame on you both - we deserve better!

When Rangers put in their "intent" to appoint an administrator in the morning, HMRC had been to court in the afternoon to force them to appoint an administrator immediately rather than wait 2 weeks.

Was that a difference in Scottish law? or just because of the huge amount of money Rangers actually owed?

To clarify a point about VAT on Season Tickets
Generally the Invoice date is the time of supply for VAT purposes and VAT is due to be paid/reclaimed on that date.
BUT
Where season tickets are sold without the issue of a VAT invoice, such payments are deemed to be deposits against future supplies. Only then when the supply is made will VAT be due.
In this respect the supply would be for each and every league home game.

Thus the Bulls selling (say) 10,000 season tickets @ (say) £100 = £1,000,000 attracts no VAT at the time of sale.

As and when a season ticket holder turns up for a home match then the club has provided the supply and VAT is due in the proportion- Cost of his/her season ticket divided by the number of home games their season ticket covered.
Should a season ticket holder not turn up then no VAT is due as the supply was available but not used.

So: the VAT cost for every home game will be:
On season ticket holders turning up at future home matches - say 9.000 season ticket holders x £120 cost of season ticket /13 number of home games x Vat factor (/120x20) = £13,800 Vat to pay

Doubt for either of those reasons.

Sounds like HMRC may have petitioned the High Court (I think may be the Court of Session in Scotland?) to appoint an administrator as nominated by them? Other than the company, it's directors or ak debenture holder, only the court can a,point an administrator if I recall correctly.. I am guessing though.

This thread is far better than anything on TV, Radio ot the Newspapers and its quite clear both sides of the divide posting quite openly.

I have certainly improved my vocabulary & literacy with such gems as ' calumny ' and 'mendacious' to name but two.

If he wasnt dead I would have sworn that Leonard Sachs from the Good Olde Days was active on this Forum.

Keep it going lads please - excellent stuff - and we dont know the ending to this Who Done it.

agreed mat. In 2006 when Caisely resigned as chairman, having taken on in 2002 what he described as the significant increase in overheads of Odsal, those "stadium" employees numbered 51.5 (2002 - 23 (tho may be pro rata full time equivalents so double that may be more realistic)), and the admin marketing and shop employees numbered 11, 9 and 3 respectively. In 2010 the equivalent figures were 85 for the stadium, and 4, 4 and 7 respectivley. So we have a third of the admin and a half of the marketing employees when Caisley left, but being generous nearly twice the number of stadium staff. to look after a black hole called Odsal. so save overheads by moving from Odsal, or lose our young players so we can pay casual stadium staff, which is the better long term option? If it was me I would f@ck over BMC and the RFL by going into admin with a prepack to reassemble with investors money and a bright young team, higher ticket prices and corresponding lower numbers at a stadium that was not a relic predating the industrial revolution. Or use the threat of that to negotiate the desired end result without admin.

Adey

I think following my earlier post that the ball is in Gurus Beard's court, to explain how Hood was going to avoid VAT Notice 701/45, why the figures dont stack up, etc etc. Only membership of clubs founded for charitable purposes get exemption from VAT, if its a commercial business no chance. Even charitable clubs have to pay VAT on any commercial element of their outputs. Of course, it could be that you are not challenging GB because he is in fact your alter-ego, Jekyl to your Hyde, whimsy and fiction to your facts and figures, but you both have in common a certain use of language, and a inclination to say you know the full facts but cant tell anybody any detail to confirm your knowledge.

Just joking Adey.

Gurus Beard, put up please. Explain how the club thought it could get around VAT Notice 701/45. What was the name of the VAT consultant that sold the scheme to Hood?

Which VAT notice or guidance note is this based on? I cannot see the vat man saying that the club do not have to pay vat because someone did not turn up, as the club will be claiming all the input tax against that supply regardless of however many turned up. Or are you saying that the VAT man requires the club to pro rata the input tax according to the number of season ticket holders that turn up? and which vat notice/guidance note is this in?

I can accept that it is seen as a future supply, so the vat would be proportioned over the number of home games, but that is it. If someone doesnt turn up, that is their problem, not the vat mans. So VAT notice please, if you supply it then I will eat my VAT. which isnt much, as I dont turn up for work very often.

It certainly is entertaining, but do not mistake the verbiage, sorry vocabulary, for anything other than superficial gloss for the bull sh@t that usually lies beneath those words.

According to a report on the BBC site:


The VAT is therefore from the lease sale, and the PAYE is from 2012 wages.

There is no mention at all of VAT to do with memberships. Why is that, then? Doesn't Mr. Guilfoyle know? If the above is true, then it is surprising that HMRC have seemingly not included it in their demand.

With filed accounts stating a Turnover of £4.6mil in 2010 droppong to £3.9m in 2011, with the same overheads it took no brain specialist to guess what was going to give. The RFL really looked into the accounts when issuing licences out didn't they?

The £500k pledged has been and gone. YOU were told it was a bottomless pit you your pledging to and still did it. Where's the return and loyalty from the Bradford Bulls now to the fans, its gone on players wages for the last 2.5 months. You were fools to pledge, it was better to buy shares in a Newco, Well at least the Boss of Thomas Cook will be happy sitting on his £15mil wages over the last 4 years while 500 staff are made redundant