Two very interesting posts I've come across, on the equivalent threads on Substandard and Wakethetrolls forums.

Firstly, Gareth on SS has pointed out what I'd have realised had I bothered to read the YEP article - that the High Court hearing was actually only yesterday, has actually only been adjourned, and that the whole thing could still blow up and finish Wakey off in less than three months if they don't meet the payments. Its more serious than I first thought. A lot more.

And that the Wakefield club's spin on it seems a tad at variance with the tone of the reported facts.

And secondly, on Wakey forum, a guy saying that (and to my surprise, I have to say) its down to tax arrears assessed regarding the Image Rights issue I have been going on about for ages. Unverified thus far, but if it IS maybe people will start seeing that this is a subject of rather more than just academic interest?

But as I said, that's just one post and the Wakey club have already stated they will make no further comment so we may never get to know the tale. If it IS down to this though, then it may be not entirely fair to accuse Wakey of short-term financial mismanagement.

Could we get Morro back cheap!

This time next year it could be a number of clubs in the Wildcats present situation .This has been a tough year and i bet a fair few clubs have asked for a percentage of their Sky money early

Well McNamara would look even more of a tool then wouldn't he ?


"We don't want to take the risk and we are going to use the quota spot on elsewhere in the squad, but we'lltake him back once he' signed for someone else"

Think you'll be right there, and I don't think there'll be any club in Sl (apart from possibly Warrington) who won't be making cutbacks or looking for ways to smoothe things out financially.

As other posters have said, it would not be wise for any fan of any club to be mocking in any way shape or form.

I hope Wakey get this sorted out swiftly.

If we're not involved in the tax fiasco, its a tick in the plus column for the the chairman and the club (I'm right in thinking we aren't involved in the singapoore parachute or whatever they call it?)

Still a shocking shirt and not happy with the Sculthorpe signing though!

I thought the RFL were still in 'talks' with the tax authorities re Image rights on behalf of all SL clubs + other sports were also seeking to clarify matters.

More likely to be a more standard problem. Finding £200K may prove difficult especially if sponsorships and season ticket sales turn out to be poor (the chance of further substantial transfer fees is minimal). Indeed if things are as precarious as Adeybull indicates a supporter / sponsor may prefer to wait until next year before making a commitment.

No doubt this was followed by the usual collection of idiots handing out the abuse and calling for a ban.

In fact, I would be mighty surprised if the PM from the mods was not in you inbox already.

Clowns, the vast majority of 'em.

I protest. I'm actually from Donny/Ilkley.

That is an understatement. Carnegie, I would speculate, are further in the doo-doo than others.

Leeds Met certainly are. How many people have they laid off recently?

Leeds Carnegie/Met are sending out letters to ex graduates asking for donations.

Blimey, didn't think it was that bad!

Haven't Leeds Uni found a massive hole in their budget too?

Leeds Uni are also looking at laying off a number of staff. My wife works there but fortunately isn't affected.

Thats what happens when you decide to be a developer rather than an education institution.

35 million, so it's still dwarved by their self-satisfaction.

There's nothing new in asking alumnii to cough up. Oxbridge don't survive on student fees alone.

Leeds Uni made about £11m profit last year, whcih is less than was expected, but still very healthy. It wants to cut costs by £35m to maintain its profitability. Some of those savings may well be in staff, difficult not to when (IIRC) over 60% of costs are staff. The union is campaigning agressively against any compulsory redundancies. I don't think there has ever been compulsory redundancies here.

Moving to Leeds Uni from Bradford reminds me of going to watch Bulls in the 90's after a lifetime of watching Cas. The smugness of those around you can be nauseating but after a while you can see their point.

Absolutely agreed if this is the case.
You will know the HMRC's initial approach to these matters is to make an assessment for losses to the Revenue (as perceived by them) and offer a settlement amount with minimal penalties and interest if full disclosure and acceptance of liability is made forthwith.
If credence is given to some Wakey posters then this is what might have happened and Wakefield have deteremined their tax/nic liability and come to an agreement to pay it.
There may be other clubs involved in HMRC assessments who have not agreed a settlement and wish to fight HMRC's interpretation. The risk of failiure to prove their case would be financially disadvantageous in penalties and interest + the legal expenses thus accrueing.

Indeed what you say could well explain where the liability has appeared from. But (and yes indeed, that is the gist of HMRC's usual approach) what puzzles me is that if Wakey did indeed make an offer to HMRC in settlement, and HMRC accepted that offer, then WHY did HMRC proceed to petition for winding up? The only conclusion you can draw surely is that HMRC raised their agreed assessments and Wakey then failed to pay within the agreed timescale? And were unable to agree more time to pay with HMRC?

Given the length of time that elapses before HMRC go nuclear, by extension you would have to conclude that these assessments were raised some time ago? and if so, maybe the failure of so many Wakey fans to turn up when their club was having its best season for ages hit the club finances so hard that they were unable to meet the payments? Speculation, but what other explanation is there?

As I said, puzzled does not come close.

This all seems a very touchy subject on the Wakey forum right now, and they are in serious "shoot the messenger" mode.

They are late filing their 2008 accounts (they were over 5 months late for 2007). Unless they were signed off before it became clear that a substantial back-tax liability (if such there is) was likely, then I would expect the 2008 balance sheet to reflect the arrears up to 31/12/08. So these accounts might cast some light. Be interesting to see what the accounts actually indicate once they are filed, although Wakey only have to file abbreviated accounts so there is bugger all you can tell beyond top-level indications.

Your comments re the latitude often affiorded by HMRC in the length of time they give before legal action are valid.
It would seem that the amount owed to them of £353,000 has some serious historic timescale. Whether that sum includes settlements or not.
A recent payment to reduce the liability to £194,000 seems not to have cut much ice with HMRC as they are pressing for the remaining balance in the courts.
It remains to be seen whether Wakefield can comply with their promised repayment schedule to HMRC.
I find it strange that in one of their best seasons for years that attendances dropped by almost 1,000 per game accrding to RFL stats
This trend must be reversed if Wakefield are to survive.

Agree with all of the above comments + BMU's.

In light of all the HMRC "excitement" I suspect the above point [imay [/ibe of greater significance /more telling than may at first have been thought . . . . .

The Wakey forum - as a bit of a deflection tactic from their own woes are guessing which other clubs are screwed over image rights - Oh look! Bulls are casually assumed to have "image rights" probs.

Got it in one.

If any of them want to see the Bulls' take on the scope for exposures to the HMRC investigations, all they have to do is go pay £1 for our 2008 accounts online from Companies House. Unlike Wakey's (again), our accounts were (as always) filed on time. And, unlike Wakey's, ours are a "full" as opposed to "abbreviated" set so you get a lot more info.

I suspect any club - across all sports - that has employed players who have been paid - by anyone - for their image rights, will be at some risk of additional liabilities once HMRC firm up on their interpretations and assessments. Likewise those who have employed players who have benefited from payments to employee benefit trusts.

So yes, the Bulls too could feasibly (that's the word the club used) find themselves queried by HMRC over the treatment of image rights payments. But everything I hear and read continues to suggest the club see no significant exposure, unlike I suspect certain other clubs who must surely be... "bricking themselves" was the term, I think? And that view has clearly been accepted by the auditors in the latest accounts, where if the club was aware of any quantifiable significant exposure then provision would have had to have been made.

The club have stated categorically that they have never used employee benefits trusts. I feel sure other clubs have - they are even referred to in the RFL Salary Cap rules - and I have always been concerned that HMRC will seek to overturn some of these arrangements as being tax evasion not legit avoidance. No a problem for the Bulls though.

They're wrong. It is in no way the Bradford club's problem, or certainly not to a large extent.

I think anyone gloating from ANY club is rather short sighted. All these tax irreg are doing is damage the product that is Rugby League, diminish its marketability on the back of television exposure (where new fans could come from) and make raids from Rugby Union a lot easier

If we have avoided this pit fall due to the management then the club should be praised. I would be prepared to eat some humble pie over the Sculthorpe comments if this is the case - only a small slice though



disclaimer - I don't think anyone on here is gloating btw