I don't want to see CC back as he's clearly a divisive figure but I don't believe Guilfoyle, Caisley, Coulby, plus Hetherington and the T and A are part of a conspiracy. It just doesn't add up.

Thats why its a sanitised version!

Sorry, I don't follow.

Oh right,

When is the deadline then?

No prizes for wondering why the fekk YOU have been conspicuous by your absence? Just a shame too many people listened to the likes of you.

the actual figures are the right direction for my estimate though a bit higher. Strange how a auditor either cannot divide £550k by 3 and multiply it by two, or not apply the gross figures rule for balance sheet balances. But £360k is a lot nearer £550k than £1200K. What is more interesting is that on the face of it there was a defence under the whatsits Development ruling ie they had that solicitors assurance that Cardiff had terminated the deal not Harris. But getting a solicitor into the witness box is a lot more difficult than getting a client in there, so practicalities may have ruled rather than precedents.

The figures are for the [iamount paid to Leeds including their costs[/i but obviously don't include the Bulls' legal costs, which should be added to show the full loss brought about by the action. I'd assume they would hardly have been negligible, though I guess it's possible there were no costs, given the relationship between the Bulls' then chairman, and their legal advisor Walker Morris. But with notional costs added it would bring the figure a bit nearer my own guesstimate of a sum pushing 7 figures.

apologies bulliac, my estimate was purely settlement, which is given as £550k for compensation and costs. our costs are give as £79K. even then there is scope for ambiguity as Coulby says that this is for related legal costs paid out 2005-8. in 2005 we were ordered to pay an estimated £64K for Leeds costs for the original hearing that established the breach. Now is this included in those legal costs or has it been given another title eg "Compensation"? Anyway, my total cost estimate is £550K + £79K + £64K = £693K. plus the unquantifiable management time. Approaching your £1m mark, but even so a lot less than the £1.2M some claimed. In terms of payment, its only the £550k that was paid in the years of fast decline 2009 - 10- 11, Coulby is unambigous that the legal costs had been paid out by 2008, so not relevant to the debate as to how much Harris affected us in those latter years.

Coulby in the League Express says the club owes(ed) 700k to HMRC with 450k overdue. In addition the club owe Andy Lynch money as well as other long creditors threatening action over long standing debts.

The club have recieved confirmation from the club's auditors of discrepancies in the 2010 accounts.

I read the actual full judgement a couple of years back, found when I was looking for something else. The basics of the contract were that Harris was only ever loaned to Cardiff, and Leeds had a contract for one year, to begin once the "loan" to Cardiff ended. I remember the judges conclusion on Harris was that he didn't really understand the contract (which I read as "he was a bit thick"icon_wink.gif. So the by the sounds of it, it wouldn't have mattered who ended the Cardiff bit, because Leeds had a year once the Cardiff loan ended.

250k VAT on Odsal lease - as previously stated. Due 30/4, agreed mayment (before all this) by five monthly instalments.

250k tax on image rights, going back years, payable three annual instalments, first of which now likely to be overdue.

85-100k (depending on who you beleive) April PAYE due 22/5 never paid, triggering HMRC winding up proceedings.

85-100k (ditto) May PAYE due 22/6.

So that lot of figures, total approaching 700k, reconciles with what is already in the public domain. And, if so, you can surely add June's PAYE due 22/7 to that list? Maybe less VAT refunds due, since with little income I suspect the VAT is a current net refund situation?

It would have been unfair to Lynch to comment previously on him still being owed money. If I know what this was about, it would not be from the club.

Other creditors were all frozen a fair while ago, at the latest once the club was deemed to be insolvent which would be mid-March I guess.

That last one is the new one. These of course would be accounts the auditors signed a clean audit report on. Be interesting to see what transpires, and whether it is material or disingenuous comment or hindsight after the event from Coulby. If the former, then it will be squeaky bum time in quite a few offices I suspect?

There are doubtless those who would argue that the auditors, having issued a clean audit report despite the wording of the going concern note, which might have warranted an emphasis of matter in view of the accounting policy note on going concern, and only six months or so before the business fell over AFTER an exceptional £1,25m profit on sale of lease, may well have been pooing their pants for a while now?

Who are the Bulls' auditors Adey? Anyone of any repute?

Why is unfair to comment on Lynch being owed money? Surely him being owed the money is the unfair bit?

A local firm. But remember, the accounts are the directors' responsibility, and whilst auditors make easy initial targets the finger of blame almost always points elsewhere.

Is the Bulls official website down for everybody else?

It's down for me too. Not good.

It is down for me as well.

Maybe part of the cost cutting?

I would have thought so. Promoting the club via social networking sites (facebook and twitter) won't cost them anything.

Yup its down.

Bear in mind, the website was hosted/powered by none other than NAK Business World AKA Peter Hood's pi$s poor web design company. Dunno what this implies, but nothing in this debacle is simple...

I'm afraid this is another nail in the coffin for professional sport for me. I've not commented as to be honest the whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. For my sins I support 3 professional clubs: York City, Leeds United and the Bulls (it's complicated) and all have suffered financial meltdown in the past few years and have been on the brink to varying degrees. Each time it's the fans and the poor sods who do normal day to day jobs within the club who seem to be the first to get the boot who suffer and have no control over what happens.

Clubs are encouraged to strive beyond their means and seem to have boards that are unable or unwilling to manage their finances to ensure that long term stability of the club. I know their are those who may place some of the blame with the fans for having unrealistic expectations (especially for a club like the Bulls who've had great success in the relatively recent past) but... fans are fans... it's their part of the bargain that they aspire that the club win things... it isn't their job or in their power to choose how the club manages it's finances.

The RFL as governing body have put policies in place to ensure that clubs don't overspend but they don't seem to work. Their ability to govern surely has to come under question when a club that was theoretically audited less than a year ago for a place in their premier competition is now on the brink of going to the wall. And what hell will they do with an empty stadium? The sport as a whole seems to be suffering from the same illnesses as some of the clubs... we strive to compete with Football or Rugby Union... we want to be a national sport and push through ill planned franchises without ensuring the infrastructure and support is their to make it a success (London... PSG... Gateshead... Crusaders...) which in turn damages the sport and gives outsiders the impression that it's mismanaged and contrived... we push the clubs to have 'stadium for 21st century sport' despite the fact that clubs are simply struggling to make ends meet as the country struggles to recover from financial meltdown (another example of not living within your means..?) As a sport we seem to have lost the ground we had at the beginning of the SL period as we have rule change after rule change and cock up after cock up.

As for the whole conspiracy theory about CC wanting the club to get rid of staff and obligations before stepping in with an 'investor'... whilst there is a degree of vitriol about it (and if it's true and not just a theory it makes you question the morals of the person behind it despite the fact that it may make perfect [ibusiness [/isense... and the morals of the system that would allow the this to happen) the simple fact is... if it's takeover in this way or the club going out of business, which is worse? Of course... on a philosophical note, it the question is the former, do we in turn have to look at our own morals...?

Bewaresheep - philosophy, morals, ethics and business all in one post. I fear however that in the modern world the first three do not enter into the world of business.

Everyone seems to strive for objectives that are demonstrably beyond their resource and structure to support. Your comments above hit Red-Hall's wishful thinking right on the head and I suspect they way things are moving SL is going to be smaller next year but not quite in the way the RFL intended?

They may have set up the website but its the Bulls that run and in particular it was Stuart Duffy who managed it and without him........

<coughs> In terms of the overall financial impact, I believe (though do not actually know) that Mr. Harris did not come for nothing, and did not play for nothing, and that his agent did not work for nothing. If indeed there was an additional cost to the club, then it needs to be added to these figures. The judge mentioned a figure, but I suppose he could have made it up. That figure did not include image rights money.

If Leeds's costs of the preliminary issue hearing itself were 64K then you can confidently say that their other costs of the whole litigation, as opposed to just one element of it, were a shedload more than 18K!

I must say that the statement is breathtakingly partial. I am particularly annoyed by this:


No, the cost had NOT been bloody well "absorbed", if by that is meant we had somehow made it irrelevant, brushed it under a carpet or otherwise waved a magic wand to cause it to go away. It was a huge amount of CASH that went out of the door, and if we had not done it, then that cash would have been in our coffers going forward.

Would an extra million in the bank have made any difference to our situation? Absorbed my arrse.

ël presidente"must be sure that HMRC Forensics Accounting dept Leeds is not going to take interest in seeing if there are "any off the books" monies that have evaded being Taxed!