Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:12 pm  

Highlander wrote:

Next year for us will be manna from heaven. We just have to get there. There's potentially an extra £1m of sky money when we get our full allocation of the new upgraded deal.

If Moore & co have said "look, in December, we identified that incoming was going to be £3m, outgoings £3.4m. We've worked hard and got it to, respectively, £3.1m (with extra sponsorship) and £3.2m, with staff cuts. And from november, of course, our income jumps to £4.1m. We think this is workable over the next 5years...." I can kind of see their point.

Like I said, they have worked out a business plan, but the crux of the press release is that they couldn't meet the preconditions of the HMRC. The RFL could have rubber stamped it, but what happens when the new company starts to deal with the HMRC and they say, "we need your six figure bond", as it says in the press release? Everything goes bang again.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:15 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

I'm assuming that what the RFL told them of the HMRC position was accurate. If the Bulls press release is correct, there is little doubt that the RFL told them of HMRC preconditions that the new company couldn't fulfil. So regardless of people's views of the RFL, it was always going to fail.

There is, therefore, only one real issue: were the RFL accurate in what the HMRC stance was?

I don't think so at all.

It is common knowledge (well, in business circles anyway) that HMRC are more frequently asking for bonds from new businesses and it would be no surprise if sports clubs were targetted and more so ones where a previous incarnation of a business had previously already cost HMRC money; but that would surely need to be a discussion between the owners and HMRC.

It is very kind of RFL to impart generalised advice as to what HMRC might say or do but you (presumably) know as well as I do that under no circumstances would HMRC discuss the confidential private affairs of BB2014 or its directors with RFL or anyone else but the taxpayer concerned or its authorised advisers.

Moore, Watt and Calvert say they have not even had the chance to have that conversation with HMRC.

That does NOT say "it would have been pointless having any such conversation".

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:20 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

It is very kind of RFL to impart generalised advice as to what HMRC might say or do but you (presumably) know as well as I do that under no circumstances would HMRC discuss the confidential private affairs of BB2014 or its directors with RFL or anyone else but the taxpayer concerned or its authorised advisers.

Not sure you're right there.

First page of RFL financial matters........

The RFL requires its Member Clubs to ensure that at all times their liabilities to HMRC in
respect of VAT and PAYE are up to date (in this context up to date means not more than
28 days in arrears). Clubs shall upon request from the RFL give HMRC written
permission in such form as HMRC may require for HMRC to share information about the
Club’s liabilities to HMRC with the RFL.
Notwithstanding the above paragraph if any Club has any liabilities to HMRC it shall also
promptly upon request from the RFL confirm the exact amount of any such liabilities both
current and historic and confirm exact details of any agreements which are in place with
the HMRC as regards the outstanding liabilities. Such certification will require signing by
the Club’s Chief Executive and one other Director.
It may be considered Misconduct to have HMRC liabilities, to fail to submit certification, to
submit incorrect certification or to Under Report to HMRC and such Misconduct may also
be considered to be a matter which impacts on the integrity of competition.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:22 pm  

ccs wrote:

Not sure you're right there.

First page of RFL financial matters........

Except that you forget the new owners were not the new owners yet and never became so, nor did it have any liabilities to HMRC.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:24 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Except that you forget the new owners were not the new owners yet and never became so, nor did it have any liabilities to HMRC.

...but it confirms that the RFL had every right to know the full details of the clubs HMRC liabilities.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:25 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I don't think so at all.

It is common knowledge (well, in business circles anyway) that HMRC are more frequently asking for bonds from new businesses and it would be no surprise if sports clubs were targetted and more so ones where a previous incarnation of a business had previously already cost HMRC money; but that would surely need to be a discussion between the owners and HMRC.

It is very kind of RFL to impart generalised advice as to what HMRC might say or do but you (presumably) know as well as I do that under no circumstances would HMRC discuss the confidential private affairs of BB2014 or its directors with RFL or anyone else but the taxpayer concerned or its authorised advisers.

That does NOT say "it would have been pointless having any such conversation".

Absolutely on the mark. Given the business interest of the director handling the finance ,it is almost inconceivable that Calvert was unaware of HMRC policies in this area. And he was the director who seemed to receive most compliments from Red Hall before the sudden change of attitude.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:29 pm  

It would, IF the club gave HMRC permission to share information "about the club's liabilities". Which liabilities in the case of BB2014 are zero.

Where does it say that HMRC are authorised to discuss the specifics of a given case, whether any and if so what bond they would want? (As opposed to general observations and guidance).

And as BB2014 say they never had that conversation with HMRC nobody can state how that conversation would have gone anyway.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:31 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Except that you forget the new owners were not the new owners yet and never became so, nor did it have any liabilities to HMRC.

But gave the company the temporary 28 day licence, as soon as that was confirmed, bb2014 would of been constrained to the same rule book, and thus, could request from hmrc without going through the club.

Worst case scenario is when bb2014 accepted the temp licence, they ticked the terms and conditions box without reading!

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:36 pm  

Why didn't Moore just say, "thank you for the information of which we were previously unaware. We will go away and have discussions ourselves with HMRC and see whether these preconditions can be lifted or modified and return back to you forthwith"?

Instead, they burned their bridges in a massive way, and none of this avoids the central issue of the fact that if it was accurate, the new company couldn't or wouldn't fulfil them, and so it was going to fail.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:40 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

And as BB2014 say they never had that conversation with HMRC nobody can state how that conversation would have gone anyway.

Any why didn't they, is another question?

A lot of ire being directed at the RFL, but fundamentally the RFL asked the questions the new company should have asked, and communicated information the new company should have been aware of.