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

IF *some* of the information within this thread is true then surely this needs to be reported to the correct authorities to look into in more detail.... ???

In the past I've stated that I wouldn't shout him out of the club as I thought he had the best interests at heart for the club but within the last 24 hours my opinion has changed dramatically.

my fear is that any protests will effect the players ability to perform on the pitch

Can now understand why people in the past said that they wouldn't invest any money into Trinity while Ted was in charge. From what I have heard he has shafted many people before and not many people trust him.

Chancer : a reckless, improvident, often somewhat unscrupulous opportunist

Like many in this last property boom, a small time businessman gambling with other peoples assets and like many others he went 'all in' once too often.

The thing is we have now lost the one asset we had 'The Ground'. Even when it was owned by the council it was still in the hands of the people of Wakefield.
Why if he had is 'beloved club' at heart did he not raise finance from the BoI and develop part of BV the amount would easily have been matched with sporting grants?
Answer; Because he would not have benifited , better the deceit of a new company than his 'beloved club' benifiting.
He saw the oportunity to use land that was not his to use.It was Wakefield Trinity Rugby League Football Clubs.

Wakefield Trinity was his golden egg and he has used it to further himself personally. But come the recession the 'house of cards' that was been built has fallen down.
The look of disgust on Harold Poyntons face today after he had read the article said it all.
I feel for all the people who donate their time and all their energies for this great club only to have been lied to their faces.
Will certainly go down as a Black Day in our history.
Let's hope his God is more forgiving than the supporters I fear.

its the players I feel sorry at the moment told one thing for another to happen, how do you build moral on that basis

Kear will have one hell of a task now and if he is found to have had a finger in the pie too all his credentials will go up in smoke

I doubt most of them will know whats going on, as long as the wage is in on pay day what does it matter to them?

That is simply neither true nor viable. The amount of funding required to redevelop BV would not be available, and even if it were, it would leave a mish mash of a development still saddled with poor access and parking.

Let us remember that our future in RL and certainly in SL very much hinges on NM. In fact if there are all these investors out there wanting a piece of us, then it is almost certainly as a result of the likelihood of the delivery of NM.

This gets worse and worse by the day.... wheres Cue Card CE with his informative post on the Wakey site ? Still waiting to be put at ease before I start with Fanzine Issue No 3 and have a real go at the state of this. Having said that, legal action was on the card with Issue 2 so maybe its best I didnt, in fear Id be facing more again in the not too distant future.

Having read the article the only man who could applaud Teds actions is Arthur Daley, and if he were a real person then I believe even his low moral scruples would stop short of these dealings.
In a business world it may not be dishonest but it is diabolical (nicest word I could think of without swearing).
How is anyone going to take on a club where un-tangling the "Ted web" will probably tie up an expensive top legal team?

Point Taken. Emotional rather than being rational.But at that moment we like Cas owned our own ground without a £2mill BoI loan against it.

having sat quiet throughout all of these pages and this saga i have decided to have my say.

i am a shareholder and attend all of the shareholders meetings. however these are the only functions outside of match day that i attend after been accused (by association) by ted for stealing money from the club (for the record i have not and will not steal from this club - we have had too many players doing that.....)

a colleague of mine had resigned from helping the club as he did not want to be associated with ted. my colleague obviously saw what was coming before i did (it took me about 12 months to realise it).

since that day i have not believed a word that ted has said, but as he was the man in charge, the man in the know we (as fans) have had to listen to him, and believe whatever we want.

at the last begging meeting (also called the last shareholders meeting) i commented to the table i was sat on that there was "more to it" than was been said by ted. why would two potential investors who approached the club, suddenly back off??

i think we know the answer now.

at the end of ted, i will start to attend functions again, and i will join the supporters trust.#

this is the club i love, but not everyone sees it the way us fans do.

another thing that struck me from the last shareholders meeting was that IF we got 500 fans with £1000, then the board would resign, and the shareholders could elect who they wanted to run to the club (i wasn't buying into this, i was afraid someone might vote for me!!!)

looks like we are a few days away from the end, and hopefully a new beginning......

together we are stronger?