Board index ‹ Super League ‹ Bradford Bulls - RedAmberandBlack.net ‹ Latest financial situation - all posts here

mat wrote:

from memory glover either wasnt in the frame or had only just shown an interest at point admin were called in at wakey. he had to pass fit and proper person checks at RFL before he bought the club hence a delay of a week or two and admininstrators selling players.

Bit different situation here as its going to caisley (or a consortium fronted by him) who takeover and he's already passed the fit and proper person test, which was confirmed by RFL in a T&A article a few weeks ago. So the delay in the changeover should be much reduced.

It was only days for Glover who agreed to buy the club but whilst the RFL were seeking to see if he was fit and proper the Administrator made staff redundant and sold players to keep essential staff and also torecoup there fees. Although not 100% I believe I have read somewhere that from an off field point of view the Bulls are not very lean people wise employing a lot of backroom staff. Wakey are now extremely lean. Expect to lose players and and staff. Unless the Knight comes over the Hill and is happy to chuck money away, the problem is still the fact that you have shareholders who are enemies!

Adeybull wrote:

The April PAYE was due 22 May (if paid electronically) so that is totally down to the new board. I suspect the old board timed their standing down quite carefully.

And yes, HMRC ARE normally reasonable when you are a struggling business doing your best. But they have had their fingers burned so many times in the leisure sector in general, and with sports clubs in particular, that they have totally lost patience.

Know what? I do not blame HMRC one bit. Why the hell should a sports club use money it has deducted from employee salaries, or collected from customers - money that was never its own in the first bloody place - to fund its operations? I have said in the past that IMO it is tantamount to theft if the business goes under and such monies are not paid, and it would be totally hypocritical of me to suggest the Bulls should be any exception. It is a bloody disgrace, whoever is responsible.

Agreed, too many clubs have used this route to avoid paying what they owe, HMRC have a duty above and beyond Bradford Bulls, if they cant find people willing to pay off the debts and invest, for relatively nothing in return then Bradford fans really do need to realise how serious this is. But.... you probably won't fall too far, you will most likely be given every chance by SL Clubs and the RFL to re-enter as The Bulls 2012, but you still need a sound business plan or someone to bankroll you in the future, cheap season tickets and free banquets for anyone with a Northern car sticker will be a thing of the past, unless Ken Davy gets bored at the Giants.

"Incredibullman": GB (who some state is Simon Fox and others state must be Chris Caisley, not least because of the style and tone) has stated categorically that the club did not believe it had a VAT liability for the last two years' memberships. And that, as a result, is in dispute with HMRC over this issue but has not paid any such VAT to HMRC.

You (who GB suggests is Peter Hood, who I have reasoned COULD be PH but have assumed it could quite possibly be Andrew Bennett although there are a couple of other possibilities) are implying that he is totally wrong.

Can you state unequivocally that he IS totally wrong, and that VAT output tax WAS returned in respect of and WAS paid in respect of membership/season ticket sales for the last two years?

If you can and do, then one of you - and since you both seem party to considerable inside information, you must each surely be either one of the principal protagonists or a spokesman for such or else the mother of all Walter Mitty characters - has to be lying.

Well?

REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:

It was only days for Glover who agreed to buy the club but whilst the RFL were seeking to see if he was fit and proper the Administrator made staff redundant and sold players to keep essential staff and also torecoup there fees. Although not 100% I believe I have read somewhere that from an off field point of view the Bulls are not very lean people wise employing a lot of backroom staff. Wakey are now extremely lean. Expect to lose players and and staff. Unless the Knight comes over the Hill and is happy to chuck money away, the problem is still the fact that you have shareholders who are enemies!

bulls if anything employ too few backroom staff. all the community staff are actually employed by bulls foundation which is a seperate business entity to the main club so arent a factor. Reason we have a big payroll each month is because there are a lot of casual staff employed on matchdays due to the sheer size of the stadium. In terms of actual salaried staff that a administrator could make redundant to save money theres not much in way of savings to be made. If we do end up going into admin I fully expect us to lose players.

HMRC's proposed action suggests that the sum involved is a serious amount, whether it be for Salary deductions (Paye & Nic) ,VAT of other contractual matters
It also suggests that there has been a long correspondence between HMRC and the Club to settle their liabilities, which the club have not done
Clearly these liabilities have accrued over a period of some time during which the BOD must have been aware that penalties and interest might be addded

Adeybull's comment is spot on!! These guys (Guru's Beard and Incrdibullman) are clearly insiders on either side of the BOD divide - so one of you is at best being economical with the truth or at worst lying to a group of people that rescued this club 2 months ago.

Shame on you both - we deserve better!

Adeybull wrote:

HMRC cannot appoint administrators. No unsecured creditor can.

The directors can; a debenture holder can intervene and see their own nominee appointed. But the whole point of administration is to protect the business from its creditors while a sale as some sort of a going concern is sought.

When Rangers put in their "intent" to appoint an administrator in the morning, HMRC had been to court in the afternoon to force them to appoint an administrator immediately rather than wait 2 weeks.

Was that a difference in Scottish law? or just because of the huge amount of money Rangers actually owed?

To clarify a point about VAT on Season Tickets
Generally the Invoice date is the time of supply for VAT purposes and VAT is due to be paid/reclaimed on that date.
BUT
Where season tickets are sold without the issue of a VAT invoice, such payments are deemed to be deposits against future supplies. Only then when the supply is made will VAT be due.
In this respect the supply would be for each and every league home game.

Thus the Bulls selling (say) 10,000 season tickets @ (say) £100 = £1,000,000 attracts no VAT at the time of sale.

As and when a season ticket holder turns up for a home match then the club has provided the supply and VAT is due in the proportion- Cost of his/her season ticket divided by the number of home games their season ticket covered.
Should a season ticket holder not turn up then no VAT is due as the supply was available but not used.

So: the VAT cost for every home game will be:
On season ticket holders turning up at future home matches - say 9.000 season ticket holders x £120 cost of season ticket /13 number of home games x Vat factor (/120x20) = £13,800 Vat to pay

Highlander wrote:

When Rangers put in their "intent" to appoint an administrator in the morning, HMRC had been to court in the afternoon to force them to appoint an administrator immediately rather than wait 2 weeks.

Was that a difference in Scottish law? or just because of the huge amount of money Rangers actually owed?

Doubt for either of those reasons.

Sounds like HMRC may have petitioned the High Court (I think may be the Court of Session in Scotland?) to appoint an administrator as nominated by them? Other than the company, it's directors or ak debenture holder, only the court can a,point an administrator if I recall correctly.. I am guessing though.

This thread is far better than anything on TV, Radio ot the Newspapers and its quite clear both sides of the divide posting quite openly.

I have certainly improved my vocabulary & literacy with such gems as ' calumny ' and 'mendacious' to name but two.

If he wasnt dead I would have sworn that Leonard Sachs from the Good Olde Days was active on this Forum.

Keep it going lads please - excellent stuff - and we dont know the ending to this Who Done it.