The administrator at Wakefield did not sell the players straight away. My (limited) understanding is the administrator makes an assessment of the business as a potential going concern (in the Bulls case, the turnover, the contrcats it holds with Sky, sponsors etc) and try to find a buyer for the company. Normally what would happen is they would sack everyone who was cheap to sack and had no 'sell on' contractual value and try to hold as much value in the company as possible for as long as possible.
This obviously requires cash but what's emerging from the Bulls is that the club are only borderline insolvent. Craven speaks of owing the bank 150k and the tax bill 'looming'. The accounts show wages at approx 200k per month.

Does anyone know what the tax bill is or whether it's even arrived? Apparently we need a £1million but there's certainly not been a winding up order which if I remember, Wakey had two. Do we have other debts? It's all very odd.

I've already given some indications of what the tax "bills" are - three different sorts, in fact (VAT, PAYE, retrospective PAYE etc on image rights etc).

I don't know any of the actual numbers (and if I did, unless authorised I would not post on here - this is commercially-sensitive info) other than an idea of one. But I can make some guesses and deductions. As I said before, I understand the PAYE is a month or so late (due presumably to what has already happened) but the other taxes are not yet due - but fall due in the coming next verty few weeks. I also understand (not from the club) that HMRC are now so sick and tired of sports clubs using them (us - the taxpayer) as a bank, and then falling over (Rangers was the last straw, I gather) that they are now extremely robust in threatening winding up if taxes are only a little overdue. The club told me that HMRC seems to have become much more aggressive in pursuit of overdue liabilities recently, which backs that up.

I think it will be a bit more than "borderline" if they don't plug the holes left by repaying the RFL and the bank (I suspect that amount quoted will continue to reduce, but have no specific numbers), since the cash position was tight before. Once you go under, liabilities crystallise and assets evaporate, as any insolvency practitioner will tell you. And as I can vouch for from my own experience both working for IPs and dealing with failed customers (as well as once being the FD of a small plc that came perilously close on its own account). Sadly, its a field I have quite a bit of experience in



As for the future income streams, most will be voidable in the event of insolvency. The administrator would need a clear idea pretty quickly of what income he could rely on. SPonsorship? Unlikely. Sky and RFL money? In the hands of the RFL (see Craven's artiocle in the YP today). Gates? Who knows. And so on. Bulls have considerably larger income from commercial sources than Wakey, as I understood it, so are much more vulnerable to loss of immediateb incopme in an insolvency.

To me, the only thing that is odd is why there is not more of the RFL lease settlement money left. Otherwise, it does pretty reasonably stack up as to why we are where we are. But its my field, don't forget. The club really IMO should have been more forthcoming in layman's language regarding some of the specifics. Craven's piece in the YP today goes a little of the way towards that IMO.

I know from experience they can be extremely aggressive but the club are saying friday could be our last match but there's no winding up order.

No, there is not.

But the directors will, I suspect, have to make the decision by the end of this week as to whether the club can continuie as a going concern, and is solvent. If having taken suitable advice, they conclude the club is insolvent, they have to take steps immediately. Not next week, not next month, but immediately. That is the law. Otherwise, they risk becoming personally liable for the company's debts, because of "trading whilst insolvent".

I would not be surprised if the directors applied for administration next week, if they cannot satisfy themsleves that there is cash there to contuinue trading. And, as soon as an administrator is appointed, its up to him what happens next. Whether any of this would happen before the Hudds game, I'm not sure given its the Easter week, but I WOULD expect events to move quickly if the campaign is not a success.

That is all my supposition, btw - in case anyone thinks I might be party to any inside info. I am most definitely not.

This might sound like a dumb question, but of what possible benefit is it to the HRMC to get clubs sent into administration? They will not get their money either then will they?

No, but then the club won't owe them any more than they already do. 'Cutting their losses' I guess.

Obviously, as if there was, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Before you get a winding up order you have to have a petition, it has to be advertised, and there has to be a meeting of creditors. In most cases the day the petition is advertised is armageddon, as then bank accounts are frozen and you can't then effectively trade anymore.

I have no clue if anyone has issued a winding up petition against us, or whether anyone has served us with a statutory demand. I don't think there's a petition, wouldn't be surprised if a stat. demand, but that's based on nothing except what I've read in the press, and nobody denying it, or explaining the relevance of the tight timescales, which suggest strongly there is some sort of deadline date or other.

The Revenue don't put clubs into administration. The club or its mooted new owners do that. HMRC would usually need to be outvoted for the creditors to agree to the administration.

Having said that, HMRC seem to take the view that it is preferable to cut their losses, although only very recently (within the last 2 years or so) they actually got round to setting up some sort of mini-department to try to "help" struggling businesses. Adey may know whether they actually ever do.

Yes. They do.

But not sports clubs. Had their fingers burnt far far too many times.

Petitioning for winding up = liquidation, not administration. Oblivion.

In the old days, pre-Enterpirse Act 2002, when theyn had Crown Preference, they ranked as a preferential creditor and so were far far more relaxed about allowing trading receivershiops and administrations. They got paid before the bank's debenture, let alone joe creditor.

The Enterprise Act helped the prospects of insolvent businesses by effectively killing off over time the ability of a debenture holder to appoint a receiver. But, law of unexpected consequences, removal of Crown Preference means HMRC are an unsecured creditor now, same as joe ordinary creditor. So they often feel they stand to lose more in the event of an administration (since available funds are targetted more towards saving the business as a viable entity) than in a liquidation (when more funds may make their way to the unsecureds).

Don't understimate the power of HMRC to destroy a sports club. Once they petition, things happen pretty quickly.

I actually don't disagree with them. It's got to the stage where fans of various clubs just see the "administration" as a couple of days blip before business carries on as normal. Fans really aren't interested who got screwed.

But I'm assuming HMRC only can't stop these sort of sports pre-packs where they don't have a voting majority?

Usually, yes, since (as I understand it - you legal types will know) the High Court will be reluctant to grant a winding up order, or will issue a stay, if the club defends by saying it is shortly to petition it for an Administration Order.

And, once an Administration Order is granted, then any winding up petitions cannot proceed anyway.

If HMRC has a voting majority at the ensuing Creditors' Meeting, it could seek to have the company wound up. But, by the time the meeting is held, the prepack is all done and dusted so the assets have long gone out of reach.

I can't see anything happening before the Huddersfield game due to the bank holidays but you would expect things to have moved on before Doncaster are due at Odsal. I imagine the date set had a couple of days leeway with the easter weekend in mind.

If the pledge total was at 350-400K by saturday morning do you think the club will still ask for the money or is it really 500K or nothing?

No idea. Not seen their forecasts, and do not know how much leeway they might have since there will be loads of other variables - not least how much they take on Friday and before.

I'd be reluctant to bet the club on there being that much leeway, tbh.

The picture that emeges from Craven's article is that we dont really have much debt, we just dont have any money coming in. The season ticket money has been received and spent. God knows where we stand with the RFL/Sky money but it appears that's gone as well.

If that is the case then there doesn't seem that much to be gained from entering Administration as a means of clearing the decks, financially. And Administration will not necessarily generate new income streams to keep us going until next year's season ticket and Sky money starts to roll in.

But if that is the case why don't the club push that message for all its worth? I'm much more likely to respond to an appeal where the key message is "We need the money to pay the players until the end of the season" than I am to the current very confused message which appears to be "We need the money to pay RBS and the tax man".

The difficulty would be that they've told everyone that we need £500k as an absolute minimum. If they then said "We'll take £400k" then at the very least they'll be accused of bad faith. If they accept the £400k and we still go bust I would think they could be on very dodgy ground.

...exactly!!!

They THINK they have said it - by saying they need the money to replace debts now repaid or being repaid, and that going forward they are happy that the business is on a sustainable footing. But they have not explained it the way it needed to be explained. That and quite a few other salient aspects of all this.

I implored them to do so last Friday. Pleaded, even. Others overheard me doing it! It is still not too late, but time is running out.

I have a sense of unease about the supposed predators we had circling a bit back. I wonder if we are now in danger of actively courting people that only a month ago we had in the 'predator' bracket.

Weren't they viewed as predators because they were really after the land? Is that still an option after the RFL deal (without the RFL and Bradford Council supporting them)?

I might be naive but I'm struggling to see how a predator could make anything out of the Bulls as things stand.

He could eat the players while we still have some.

Do we believe the "predator" explanation though?

In light of subsequent events it seems the RFL just wanted the money they'd advanced the club back, as no details of that had been made public it looks like a nice story to explain away the lease deal without divulging the real reasons.

To quote Mr Hood from the original announcement about our difficulties he says:
“If this pledge raised £100,000 or £200,000 then I don’t think that’s anywhere like enough. But if sponsors come forward and we get to between £400,000 and up to £800,000, then it probably would be."

Originally I would've taken from that, that 400k would be enough to see us through until we raised nearer the 800k at the end of the month. However given his announcement today I'm now not so sure.

Parkin lost interest once he realised he would not get Bradford City.

I thought the RFL dripfeed the Clubs money and pay them monthly? I would think it highly unlikly the RFL gave Clubs Skymoney from the RFL in one lump sum in case they spent it all.

And I would think you are highly wrong.

You can't have your cake and eat it.