Previously answered

I appreciate the replies, RDM, so please don't take this questioning the wrong way.

BUT

I think most people on here were under the impression that we'd sold the ground to Gala and were still due half the amount in final settlement. Are you saying that in fact, all that is still outstanding from the sale of Belle Vue is 350K?

It probably is for the administrator to sort out, as you say.

does this mean we will be playing super league this year or not? i hope my catalan trip is not going to be spent in a bar in spain!!!

As was I until I met with the club last week.

Cala no longer want the ground, but are contractually committed. Yorkcourt offered them a way out, although it means that WT receive less than was remaining from Cala.

Definitely one for the Administrator to sort as it will depend on the contractual position between Cala & YC at the point the club enters Administration.

There are worse places to be.

Super.

Thanks for the info.

Yorkcourt are coming out of this one quite nicely.

I would be very surprised if we didn't play in SL this season. Another club (presumably Widnes) wouldn't be able to assemble a squad able to play in SL in less than 4 weeks & if the RFL prevented us from playing in SL while under the control of the Administrator, they'd possibly be opening themselves up to claims from the club's creditors that the Administrator wasn't able to get the best value for the club.

So the prospect of administration is even more attractive then, as we were only going to get a third of the amount owed on the ground anyway through this deal. A bit naughty of the club not to reveal this information to shareholders though before agreeing it with YC. Just makes my signature seem all the more appropriate.

I thought at the stadium meeting at Belle Vue that Ted once said it was not Cala who had bought the ground, or was I mistaken ? Have they already paid us £1.1m why would they now not want the ground ?

I reckon we will go into administration at the end of the month then we just have to hope there is someone out there who is willing to take the club on, possibly one of the three previously interested parties.

It's just over half of what was left.



I don't know the full details of the negotiations, but if Cala wanted out & knew that WT didn't have the money spare to push them through the courts for the full amount of the contract the BoD have probably done the best thing possible by introducing YC to get them to take the land on instead. A little bit of something is better than a whole lot of nothing.

Its al very confusing if it was Cala who bought the ground and paid half to date ( well some time ago ) when was the other half due ? when we vacated Belle Vue ? So have Yorkcourt paid Cala their money back or some of it and do they now own BV but owe us some money ? In fact am really confused as to who does own the ground now or is it half way between someone who has paid us some money and the club.

More than that I think. Given the way the construction market has changed since they bought the ground in 2007/8 the construction industry has been turned on its head. What may have been a financially viable site then may not be now & it could well be cheaper for Cala to take a hit now rather than build the whole development & find that it costs them more in the long run.

Presume the contract was drawn up by Ted's Solicitor then. Because any half decent Solicitor would have made the deal watertight, so that Cala would not risk going to court, if we wanted to enforce it. Also, surely the Bod should have explored the propsect of Cala being allowed to walk away (but out of pocket for what they had paid to date) if they did not want to pay the total o/s and then the club could have looked to selll it to someone else for more than the 350k YC were going to provide

Ok thans will sleep on it see if understand it better tomorrow

As I understand it the £600k was due when we vacated, but this was to be replaced with £350k when NM got planning permission & therefore (in theory) before we vacated BV. As for who owns BV - "the land is not in the ownership of the club" - the asset value on the balance sheet is among the debtors (i.e. owed cash by) rather than fixed assets (i.e. what we can sell).

I am getting really confused now. I thought we had sold the ground for over GBP 2m (can't recall the exact figure) and had half to date, so how is the balance owed only GBP 600k? Did Ted take some to repay Directors Loans?

Simply because we'd had more than half the money & that had gone to repay the bank and cover some costs in the meantime.

The one thing the club has not had is Directors Loans (unlike a lot of other clubs who have far grater losses than we do). I'm sure that if Ted could have afforded to make such loans he would have done long ago & we wouldn't have had to sell Ryan Atkins to pay part of the original tax bill.

So the club have not been straight with people then, because I can't recall them ever saying they had had more than half.

Also, if Ted has not provided any Directors Loans, then that would tend to smash this urban myth that he has put all his cash into the club and now he is skint can't afford to anymore. So really not much to thank him for at all.

Am I right in thinking that WTRLFC received a loan from WMDC to pay for the cost of the proposals for outline planning permission? If so, does anyone know how much this was for and the likelyhood of the local taxpayers seeing this money again (admin or not).

Am I right in thinking that Ted owns the Cats Bar and if so where does that fit with selling the ground, as it seems to be an integral part of it.
Also, who actually owns the Hospitality block? If it is owned by the club, can it be sold to realise some cash?

The Community Trust got a loan that was guaranteed by WMDC for the plans. If the development is approved & goes ahead then the Community trust will be able to repay the debt in the agreed term. WMDC Council Tax payers will only end up footing the bill if the plans for the stadium are rejected.



AFAIK the Cats Bar forms part of the "land & buildings" at BV and was therefore an asset of the club, although I'm happy to stand corrected on that front.
The hospitality block is owned by the club and in theory could be sold, however, for the time being they serve a purpose through the week housing the club offices & Learning Zone and on match days are a source of additional income (above normal gate receipts) for the hospitality sales.
Selling them now would actually be detrimental and the costs associated to dismantling, relocating & rebuilding them would mean that there is no real value in them at all. The bank certainly won't see them as any form of collateral.

Let's get something clear...Ted Richardson may have found himself falling on harder times than he (and I'm sure the vast majority of us) would have liked in recent months and I know that as a fan of Wakefield Trinity he would want to do all he could to help the club, but the constant innuendo about carving club assets out for his personal benefit is ridiculous. Do you really think that if he had these assets they would have been hidden as he was having to sort out his IVA?

The club has had very little in the form of tangible assets for years other than the ground & the BoD got the best deal they could for the club at the time it was sold. WT may be a small company by general standards, but the likes of Cala or Yorkcourt would not want to buy a large plot for redevelopment knowing that there was going to be a bar & changing room facility in one corner of the site that they needed to buy separately.

Asset stripping is something that I have seen directors of companies get sent down for.

There is only one reason why the club has fallen on hard times & that is not enough people coming through the turnstiles every other Sunday. ATEOTD RL is in the entertainment industry and when the team is performing badly it's understandable that people vote with their feet. Add to that the impact of bad weather on some occasions & people tightening their belts because of the recession and it's no real surprise that income has fallen below the levels needed to cover the expenses each month.

Not the answer I was hoping for, but thanks all the same!

What answer were you hoping for?