It's worth pointing out here that whilst Mr. Richardson's actions seem to have been self-serving at best, there is no evidence (yet) that he has acted illegally. The administrator may find otherwise, but I somehow doubt it.

The fact that our club appears to all intents and purposes been sold down the river seems undeniable, though.

What an absolute scandal.. you couldn't make this poop up...

Ted Richardson..... Don't you ever set foot inside the walls of Belle Vue again :@

Oh I forgot you own it and are charging our debt ridden club rent in order for you to pay the loan off, the money we should have recieved.

From fear of getting banned I cannot sum up how much I despise you, If I ever see you in your fancy house in walton or your many holiday apartments in Cyprus god forbid.

Your not alone in feeling that way mate.

I know that this area is a little 'cloudy' and I don't suggest that I understand even a small percentage of what has been going on behind closed doors, but I feel that it is wrong to state that WT have received nothing from the sale of Belle Vue. The money has helped to pay off debts that WT accrued to the directors for payments they had made on the club's behalf (I know that there may be a moral aspect to this regarding other creditors and who receives payment first, but many on here were berating the club if it in the future does not pay creditors as a result of going into administration - doesn't this include directors?).
The other 'benefit' the club received fom the BV sale is that the long term bank loan was paid off - it had to be because it was secured against the ground.
With regard to other posters comments regarding this affair, I don't know and as I have stated I can't follow it but it does reflect badly on the club.
What I think is happening is that we are signing a three legged prop from the IoM.

I don't care how it is dressed up, Ted has looked after himself first and left the club to lurch from one crisis to another. He has abused his position and basically done what the hell he likes and then proceeded to blame others for things that have gone wrong. He has made us a laughing stock.

He is a despicable man and he and his family need to get as far away from our club as possible and as quickly as possible. In the interests of their own safety, I seriously hope they don't plan to watch from the terraces as his atrocious letter to shareholders refrerred to.

In fact all this makes what he wrote in that letter ten times worse.

is the making himself a preferential creditor, by pocketing the £750k, legal?

Be interesting to see how much the Richardson clan have taken out in wages as well.

Bet it aint small change

Over the years it has to be well over 1 million and i would imagine it is over 2 million.

For all those ranting about other clubs and how unfair it was they had 'sugar daddies' and we did not, we did, just a skint one. We were also unlucky ours called his loans to the club in, many just write them off.

Unlucky or mismanaged or a BoD spending above the natural level of the club to succeed, but in doing so, perhaps, putting the club further back than it has ever been since formation.

And for those who preached on here how we 'didn't care' if we didn't stick a grand in or how 'it wasn't much money', I hope you choke on those words. Disgraceful then when the majority didn't have anywhere near the full story, even more so now.

I think you will find that the League Express may well have made a mistake. From all the shareholders meetings that I have attended I never remember the accounts showing that there were any directors loans to the club. I do remember that there was a bank overdraft of somewhere in the region of £ 1.4 or £ 1.5 million, I suspect that the Richardson Eccles partnership put up the security for the overdraft.

So when The League Express report that WTRLFC received a part payment from Tillion and that this payment was taken out of the club to pay of Richardson Eccles loans I suspect that this money would actually have been paid to the bank to pay of the overdraft, this in turn would means that any security that Richardson Eccles had given to the banks was no longer required as we no longer had a significant overdraft. I also seem to remember someone at the top table at the recent shareholders meeting advising that we only had a £ 100,000 overdraft, so this all adds up.

A couple of questions here.
1.Rebel rebel,you say Ted (Tillion)appear to have done nothing illegal,i'm not into the legal side or finance but if I sold my house,to me with a loan would that be a legal transaction?
2.I think the majority of people here think Ted's shi7 in the nest big time.Calling for his head is a perfectly natural reaction,assuming this happened and he walked away taking family and friends/employees where on earth would we stand,who'd be the captain of this rudderless ship?Answers on a postcard please!

The ground was sold 3 years ago. We weren't in administration then, and we still aren't (yet).

I wrote that there's no evidence to show he acted illegally (yet). So certain accusations levelled against him are potentially libellous and shouldn't be made until we know what the full situation is. That's not to protect his neck so much as to protect this message board, btw, before anyone reaches any wrong conclusions.

As for your question, Jinje, if you own your own home, you don't need to buy it off yourself again, mate. If anyone tells you otherwise, don't believe them.

In theory, it's perfectly legal for companies to create new entities (and there are plenty of options that suit different circumstances, not just the bog standard Limited Company) to manage assetts, secure credit lines, be tax efficient or to spread liabilities. My company does it all the time, as do lots of others.

There is however a vast difference between what's legal and what's right; if Ted & Co have, as seems to be suggested, secured their own financial future by contriving a deal around Belle Vue that enriches them whilst impoverishing the club then yes, he should be hounded out of Wakefield never to return. If he's done all of that whilst publishing his ridiculous and insulting begging letter, then clearly he has no integrity, no regard for the club and total contempt for the people who spend their money in his grubby little corner shop.

And that's the point I crudely attempted to make!!

You going to Toulouse next year?

Looking forward to it already (assuming they don't get offered a franchise too, in which case, see you in Barrow).

And that's where the distinction lies.

I'm not sure how he's managed to secure his own financial future through the sale, though. He is in an IVA, after all.

Theres ways and means.

Fair point - I'd concede that without evidence, I probably overstated that part.

It's worth mentioning though that IVA's, bankruptcy, administration etc can all be used very proactively by people with the right advisors and sufficient nouse to move their assets into the appropriate legal entities; Ted being in an IVA doesn't necessarily mean he's worrying about how to put chicken nuggets on the table.

At the moment, he has got us right by the chicken nuggets!

Probably more concerned with how to hide the gold nuggets under it.

Completely agree that the whole situation is very un-ethical.

However in relation to selling the ground etc in the eyes of the law the club (WTW Ltd or what ever the exact name is) has sold the ground to a completely separate legal entity. There is nothing wrong legally here at all despite the fact that it is owned by the same individual or group of individuals who are doing the selling.

However and here is the accountant side of me talking, what should have happened in order to make it a legal transaction was for the sale to take place at arms length and at a fair price. That is to say as long as the club had the land valued at a fair price and the sale was done in a legal manner with all the correct paper work then there is nothing incorrect here.

In the accounts at the back in the additional notes the company would have to disclose that the sale was undertaken between "related parties" so that the readers of the accounts could see with transparency what had actually happened.

And here is where the potentially un-ethical nature of the transaction potentially gets worse. Wakefield being a small company only disclose abbreviated accounts and therefore do not necessarily have to show these notes on the accounts submitted to companies house or for that matter a profit and loss account. Given this any body having a quick look would not necessarily see the details of the transaction involving any related parties.

Full details would have to be given to shareholders via a full set of annual statutory accounts at the AGM.

But unfortunately there is very little anyone can do – I would have thought that someone with a bit of cash would have consulted with the relevant legal experts before committing to the transaction

Would Ted have been able to complete the sale of Belle Vue with just his signature?
Or would the signature of other directors been required?

It really depends on the mandate set down by the clubs articles but having said that it would normally require two signatures - certainly the case at firms i have worked for.

Normally the finance director and managing director/CEO would be required.

Just depends upon who else is on the BoD and what if anything they would have benefited from the sale of the ground