That does not make good reading, but as annoying as some of their fans have been lately we dont need to see any RL club being wound up by HMRC.... even wakey.

Just makes you wonder which other clubs are having conversations with them? As I think Adeybull pointed out a while back some of the implications of certain tax loopholes being closed. (could be a completely different issue mind, Im about as far form a tax expert as you could get!

)

Just demonstrates how the recession is hitting every clubs revenues. It is interesting given the comments by some Wakefield fans about our financial situation.

Obviously wouldnt want them to go under but IF we have any Burgess money available, and that is a bif if, id be going for Brough.

That comment was tongue in cheek from me. TBH I fear this is the first of many Super League clubs to be in trouble.

In light of that news, it makes our board's efforts to be prudent all the more sensible.

Its a complete joke considering what Platini said on Tuesday night before the United game concerning the football clubs. There's no way the RFL would bail a club out of administration if it came down to that

You think? You think the RFL wouldn't bail out a club in severe financial difficulty, if, say, they were an "expansion" club?

Agreed. A successful club will be the club that comes through this recession with no debt and still intact.

I see even Leeds have swapped warm weather training for Cumbria. Leeds strikes me as being well run financially (even with Caddick as back up) and if Leeds are making cuts it just shows its hitting everybody.

Brough would really improve our team IMO, however, the three questions are:

a)would/can we pay a fee
b)do we want him given his less than sqeeky clean reputation
c)will Wakefield resist an offer from any club given their obvious financial position and his contract situation

Am I correct in thinking the club did confirm the burgess money was available?

Pardon the ignorance but i have no idea what you're talking about. What's an expansion club?

A moot point this, I'm a big fan of Brough but signing him would virtually see us not using our full overseas quota (which may be a good thing)

Debts to HMRC cover a lot of items, the main ones are Paye & Nic on wages and benefits, VAT on almost all income, Corporation Tax and any penalties/interest handed down.
There is a reason why its often HMRC that needs to apply for a Receivership in that it is relatively easy for a company to defer these payments in preference to those trade creditors, without whom you could not continue to function at all.
The problem is cash flow where income flow has definitive major cycles. Season ticket sales, income from Sky, income from sponsors.
I suspect all clubs have their crux cash flow at the end of the season which is repelenished by season ticket sales and sponsors for the following season. I do not know as and when Sky money is allocated.
The question on cash flow would be to what extent are the previous year's liabilities (for HMRC and others) being funded out of future income, and how will this impact on future expenses.
I have no doubt that Adey's comments about tax/nic investigations re avoidance will continue with some clubs but this will be just another problem to the existing one.

A club that expands the geographical area in which RL or SL is played - Crusaders, Dragons, Quins.

Full set. And you should be more interested in the notes than either, given that that is where most of the interesting stuff in any set of accounts really lives. The Chairman's Statement, as always for Bradford, provides a pretty comprehensive summary of the year. Do what I did and go get them for £1 from Companies House online. They were available for download from first thing this morning, and I updated one or two people with the gist earlier today.

In the circumstances, and especially given matters reported elsewhere, I think you'll find our 2008 results will be better than most and I don't think the club regards them as unreasonable in the circumstances. But subsequently, 2009 was obviously a difficult year for (nearly) everyone, and the Chairman concludes: "...That 2009 would be challenging was not in doubt. Just how challenging I shall explain in my report of 2009". You'll have to wait till after 30/9/10 for that though.

But I would agree with those who counsel against the obvious temptation of resorting to a spot of [ischadenfreude[/i with some of the arrogant gloating little toerags who have infested this board from Wakey way in recent weeks. Its not easy for anyone right now, and things have a nasty habit of coming back to bite you.

As those gloaters from Wakefield will be realising.

Ah

Point taken, very very good point DILLI

And they have a number of different income streams, including seemingly at least one very unique income stream for several years which no-one else has.

?

Posted this on the Wakey board. May be of passing interest to one or two, so will repeat on here. Bit boring, so don't bother reading unless you really want some background on HMRC and winding-up petitions and related issues:

Swore I'd never post on here again after the experience last time I did. But I'll make an exception - and certainly not to gloat (although heaven knows, it would be no more than some of the pond life from on here who have been gloating on Bulls board over recent weeks would deserve).

Just want to make a point, as someone who probably has more experience and knowledge of this kind of situation than most who post on these boards - given what I do for a living.

Firstly, I see people have been asking where the debt came from? I do not know the answer to that, and [url=http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/Wakefield-Wildcats-just-avoid-going.5797989.jpthis[/url does not help much.

but I can tell you where the debt to HMRC for most companies who find themselves in this situation comes from. It comes from a combination of:

1. Tax and NIC deducted from employees salaries, which should be paid to HMRC by 19th of the following month. It is money that was never the company's - it is deductions from employees not yet paid over.

2. The employer's NIC contribution for those employees - ditto re payment date.

3. VAT charged to and collected from "customers" (speccies, sponsors, sky, RFL...most club income is standard-rated) on behalf of HMRC. Payable at latest a month after the end of each VAT quarter. And OK its net of VAT incurred, but a large part of club costs are people-costs which are outside of the VAT regime so you always end up with a sizeable VAT liability regardless of what profits or losses you are making. And again, this money was never the company's.

In most cases where HMRC has to resort to the High Court for a winding-up order, it is because the business has failed to pay over THESE taxes, which in the main were collected on behalf of HMRC and were NEVER THE BUSINESS's MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE. The question I always put to people trying to come to terms with this is "how would YOU feel if the tax and NICs deducted from your pay by your employer were not paid over to the taxman, but the employer instead used them to finance their business?" (And many people not unreasonably IMO answer "better in the boss's pocket than the taxman's, if it keeps me in a job"icon_wink.gif

Now there are other taxes which might be unpaid, like corporation tax (which you have to make profits to pay...) and capital gains tax (e.g on sale of ground), so its not always the case that HMRC has lost patience because of the business holding on to money that was never actually theirs. Someone mentioned "image rights" - alluding to arrears of PAYE and NICs following any "grossing-up" settlement with HMRC for payments which should have been treated as pay and therefor taxed. Any or all of these may or may not be involved, although I have not heard Wakey being mentioned as a club most at risk under this last item - other clubs starting with "W" maybe...

But, as I said, its usually PAYE/NIC and VAT which triggers a winding up petition.

Back in the old days of "Crown Preference", most tax debts were "preferential creditors", paid out before the mass of other "unsecured" creditors. This meant that HMIT and HMC&E (as they then were) were generally a lot less likely to press for winding-up - since they would get paid in preference anyway. But following legislation a few years ago HMRC are now only on a par with all the other creditors. And since they can often be the one who does not get paid because if you don't pay your staff or suppliers or lenders you are dead, HMRC are these days far more worried about getting paid than they ever were. Hence a big increase in HMRC initiating winding-up.

And for the avoidance of doubt, the reports refer to a Winding-Up hearing. This is no minor difficulty. If the High Court believes the business is insolvent, in the absence of application by the company for an Administration Order then the High Court may well rule that the business is prima facie insolvent and grant the order. And the minute it does that and the order is stamped by the court, you are in liquidation. No way back. Dead.

And it looks like, from what has been reported, that was what your club has very narrowly avoided.

Don't be confused by talk of "receivers" and "receivership". That is an increasingly less common process whereby a secured lender's appointed insolvency practitioner/s takes control of the business to "receive" its assets to sell them to pay off the lender (bit like a glorified bailiff!). The reports refer to an "official receiver" - totally different. That is an official appointed by the court to conduct the winding up of a company put into compulsory liquidation by the court.

That is a quick and abbreviated few notes of mainly general application, which may or may not be relevant and of some assistance.

I take no satisfaction from what I read today (came as quite a shock, to be honest). It is not good for anyone (except maybe the insolvency practitioners, accountants and lawyers). I hope this gets resolved so your club can move on.

Adey, do you think they'll actually read that let alone understand it?

They should read and understand one basic principle.
The club cannot pay at the moment monies owed to HMRC.
In this respect they are insolvent ie. more cash calls than cash available.
Its not rocket science.

Not sure, from some of what we have seen their trolls post on here, that some of them CAN read, to be honest.

The odd one or two, the ones who were asking sensible questions or making reasoned comments about it, might. It was their comments that prompted me to post that in the (possibly näive) hope that it may be of some help to one or two. But at least if any of their trolls comes on here now I can just refer them back to that.

Indeed. In one. Insolvent = unable to pay debts as and when they fall due.

I do hope this isn't the Bulls new strategy. ie wait for the rest of the league to go bust so we win by default

Carnegie? Universities are going to be a bit strapped for cash soon as well I think - although people pay to go to Carnegie (from overseas)

The more I look at this, the more its seems clear that this all took place in September, and Wakefield reached an agreement then with HMRC - maybe on the eve of the hearing, maybe after selling players to find the £160k...speculation...dunno?

If that is the case, its curious that the media has only now picked up on the story - when it is two months old and (provided Wakey meet the rest of the scheduled payments) resolved?

Either its some hack got his grubby hands on a leak, or mischief thou art afoot? Thought we'd already had mischief night?

And remember, Wakey are not the only club without a sugar daddy, so I'd not take any pleasure in their situation.

For Wakey to get to the position where they do not have enough funds to pay HMRC, and clearly not had those funds for many months prior to legal action, then future funding and cash flow must be a concern.