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

Why did they sell Sammutt to us if they were'nt the owners?

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:43 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

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!

look, the quote simply states:

...permission in such form as HMRC may require for HMRC to share information about the
Club’s liabilities to HMRC with the RFL.

The PURPOSE of this very limited authority is so that if clubs start to run up HMRC liabilities, the RFL can find out about them.

With respect it is plainly restricted to that, and if all clubs do sign up to this, then I'd also guess RFL don't write many letters of enquiry.

BB2014 would have had whatever discussions HMRC wanted, but the known reason it never got to that was the RFL suddenly deciding to put the new owners in special measures, which they were not prepared to agree, it was a complete deal-breaker.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:44 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.

The HMRC don't care. The new company don't owe the money but are taking over the same organisation, and so the HMRC say, "we'll have a large bond off you first, fellas, because the last lot went down like the titanic and owe us a load."

Business plan goes belly up.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:49 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

Why did they sell Sammutt to us if they were'nt the owners?

You're right, he is still ours. Send him back immediately!

Slugger McBatt wrote:

The HMRC don't care. The new company don't owe the money but are taking over the same organisation, and so the HMRC say, "we'll have a large bond off you first, fellas, because the last lot went down like the titanic and owe us a load."

That's pretty much what they may have said, as i said in my first post on the subject, such requirements are increasingly common.

Slugger McBatt wrote:

Business plan goes belly up.

On what basis? It was remarked above that Calvert is unlikely not to be up to speed with current HMRC policy, and as MM & Co. said, they never had that conversation.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:00 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You're right, he is still ours. Send him back immediately!

Thats not a valid response, but the question i posed goes to highlight what an unholy mess this is.
can anyone really claim to understand this quagmire of rumour, lie, half truth, behind closed doors deal and counter rumour...?
If this was a thriller story i'd have put it back on the shelf ages ago for being too far fetched!!

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:01 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

look, the quote simply states:
The PURPOSE of this very limited authority is so that if clubs start to run up HMRC liabilities, the RFL can find out about them.

With respect it is plainly restricted to that, and if all clubs do sign up to this, then I'd also guess RFL don't write many letters of enquiry.

BB2014 would have had whatever discussions HMRC wanted, but the known reason it never got to that was the RFL suddenly deciding to put the new owners in special measures, which they were not prepared to agree, it was a complete deal-breaker.

But bb2014 would have already had the hmrc liabilities from okbulls through tupe anyway - I assume throughout this whole process the rfl would (and should) have an open dialogue with them about any potential takeovers. Hence the hmrc liabilities of bb2014 could be requested by the rfl as soon as the temporary licence was granted (I assume) - and thus found out about said bond.

There is no evidence to suggest the bb2014 had talked to hmrc - whether it was on the to do list, or whether it was assumed that a debt is a debt and it will be paid off upon the completion of the deal, I don't know. But Moore clearly indicates that he (and thus bb2014) were unaware of any such bond that the rfl told them would be required. There is circumstantial evidence to suggest the rfl had exercised their right to talk to hmrc about okbulls/ bb2014 - further, if this case does taken to court, would be very easy to prove - else, the rfl stated this on assumption, were (potentially) wrong about the matter, and would have destroyed the simplest solution the the Bradford problem. Whether you think the rfl is against Bradford or not, that is gross misconduct, so the rfl must of been sure. We may never know however.

What does seem apparently clear, is that the information the rfl "recieved/ decided on behalf of hmrc" about said bond, clearly destroyed the confidence it had previously had in any such business plan bb2014 had presented. Any such revised business plan that bb2014 had (including the one that had a "mere" 100k shortfall) wouldn't have included any such bond (I can assume from moores comments) and thus, is inaccurate by 6 figures anyway.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:04 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

Thats not a valid response, but the question i posed goes to highlight what an unholy mess this is.
can anyone really claim to understand this quagmire of rumour, lie, half truth, behind closed doors deal and counter rumour...?
If this was a thriller story i'd have put it back on the shelf ages ago for being too far fetched!!

Yep, you certainly couldn't make it up. And judging on past debacles going right back to Harrisgate and beyond, we'll never get to know almost anything of what truly goes or went on. At least the tradition of claims /counterclaims/ fierce denials and threats of legal action continues in full spate. I'd miss that.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:05 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

On what basis? It was remarked above that Calvert is unlikely not to be up to speed with current HMRC policy, and as MM & Co. said, they never had that conversation.

It goes belly up because the press release indicated that the HMRC wanted collateral that the owners weren't prepared to put up, i.e., their homes.

Like I've said, take away all the spats about how people behaved, the fundamental issues are:
1. Why didn't the new company speak with HMRC?
2. Was the information correct?

If the answer to 2 is yes, then everything else is largely irrelevant.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:07 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

It goes belly up because the press release indicated that the HMRC wanted collateral that the owners weren't prepared to put up, i.e., their homes.

Which the new board had not been informed of prior to that moment?

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:12 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

But bb2014 would have already had the hmrc liabilities from okbulls through tupe anyway

Nope.

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

There is no evidence to suggest the bb2014 had talked to hmrc -

You've never set up a business, have you.

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

But Moore clearly indicates that he (and thus bb2014) were unaware of any such bond that the rfl told them would be required.

Nope, just says they never had that conversation

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Whether you think the rfl is against Bradford or not,

i didn't say that, I have said that something very clearly changed very late in the game, and would like to know what it was. The RFL seemed to be all for MM & Co. up to that point, certainly that impression is what MM's statement confirmed.

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

What does seem apparently clear, is that the information the rfl "recieved/ decided on behalf of hmrc" about said bond, clearly destroyed the confidence it had previously had in any such business plan bb2014 had presented.

Clear? In what way? Nobody has said this, RFL have not claimed this.

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Any such revised business plan ...is inaccurate by 6 figures anyway.

Only if you don't understand "bond".