Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:34 pm  

I've got to say I've not seen anything about this loan other than here!

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:40 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

How would te Bulls get dragged deep into the mire? Moore, Calvert and Watt have nothing to do with Bradford Bulls anymore

Its usually an innocent party that gets damaged when the dirty washing is done in public,who know what kind of info could come out because of this

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:44 pm  

Don't think much else could make this situation worse tbh, so come on let's have a dick measuring contest between bb2014 and the RFL would be something else to talk about, especially if bb2014 emerge victorious the RFL could be in all kinds of trouble, and we finally get rid of those muppets in charge.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:40 pm  

Taking away all the unhappiness about the RFL, when you distil the press release, doesn't the whole thing come down to these two things:

daveyz999 wrote:

ONE of the sticking points between the Bulls directors and the RFL has been a debt of around £170,000 to HMRC. Although they said they were willing to meet that debt, they have been told – by the RFL, not HMRC – that unless all creditors are paid in full, HMRC will not accept payment by a new business.
In addition the RFL says the tax authorities are now insisting that whoever comes into take over the business must have a six figure bond, owing to the business having failed twice in such a short period of time.

So the only question is whether those two things are true, surely? If not, then it is easy to understand their anger. If true, then it would have ended in the same outcome even if the RFL had made all parties happy with their conduct.

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:48 pm  

That's what I don't understand, why would the hmrc tell the RFL that they won't accept part payments? Surely hmrc would tell the administrator?

Even then, can you really imagine hmrc turning down a 60 percent payment, when the alternative is them getting 0 (hypothetical of course)?

Re: Ownership and twists : Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:53 pm  

daveyz999 wrote:

That's what I don't understand, why would the hmrc tell the RFL that they won't accept part payments? Surely hmrc would tell the administrator?

Even then, can you really imagine hmrc turning down a 60 percent payment, when the alternative is them getting 0 (hypothetical of course)?

The rfl could of asked hmrc for clarification on the situation? Given they were going into a crucial meeting about the future of the club, it would be sensible of them to have that information? Or they knew of the law and assumed it would be in place. Or they were just trying to screw over Moore and co.

And the payment is a drop in the ocean for hmrc, they are capable of blocking the new company forming if deemed too high risk (and are allowed to ask for bonds in high risk situations, which one would assume is applicable) - so choosing no payment, with no risk to other companies would be a better option if the bond was refused?

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:53 am  

daveyz999 wrote:

Even then, can you really imagine hmrc turning down a 60 percent payment, when the alternative is them getting 0 (hypothetical of course)?

Yes. In cases of admin/CVA etc it is normal for HMRC to vote "no" to any part payment, even though they know the alternative is 2p ijn the £ or whatever. As i understand it, the reason is on general principle, they will not do a deal to accept part payment in settlement.

Unless of course you are a multinational telecoms giant, owe billions and are mates with a man who can sign the deal off, I suppose.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:28 am  

So in a nutshell, even though Moore et al are unhappy with the RFL, and feel that they were misled, ultimately the HMRC stiffed the deal, not the RFL, that the RFL merely passed on what they had been told by HMRC.

It may be, of course, that the RFL didn't know of the HMRC position until shortly before the fateful meeting, meaning that they appeared to be happy with proposals until they found out that more was required to placate the HMRC side of thing.

I suppose one of the hard things for the RFL is that they are not only concerned with running the Bulls club. Whereas Moore et al have had months of constant work and effort on one project, the RFL have got to slot the Bulls situation in alongside doing all their other stuff, which included negotiating new league formats, new Sky deal, and kicking off a new season.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:42 am  

Bradford Bills......the team that keeps on giving!

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:26 am  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Taking away all the unhappiness about the RFL, when you distil the press release, doesn't the whole thing come down to these two things:
So the only question is whether those two things are true, surely? If not, then it is easy to understand their anger. If true, then it would have ended in the same outcome even if the RFL had made all parties happy with their conduct.

At he beginning of February I was told by someone close to the club that everything would be hunky dory, including much of the stuff that they've claimed to be the RFL's position after the 23 Jan meeting. I'm sure that he genuinely believed this to be the RFL's position at that time and think its very likely that that was the view of the club. It would seem that, either Moore & Co completely misread the signals given by the RFL, or that the RFL's position changed radically. Perhaps after further dialogue internally or with HMRC. Which would make the anger understandable.

Either way its difficult to see why or how the other parties involved in talks with the RFL are going to come up with a more acceptable package to the RFL now, when they couldn't or wouldnt do that during the 28 day period.