Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:20 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.

I haven't seen that claim. Where is it?

Slugger McBatt wrote:

1. Why didn't the new company speak with HMRC?
2. Was the information correct?

I don't understand the question. Why didn't the new company ask HMRC if it would like a six figure bond?

In my opinion if such a bond was to be asked for or discussed then rather obviously the discussion starts with HMRC not the other way around?

Nobody has indicated what the response to any such would have been. The statement just says they never had the conversation.

I am not HMRC and do not know whether they would have required any bond or if so on what terms or what size. Or if they would have been negotiable. The only thing that seems to be undisputed is that as at 4th March 2014 at no stage has HMRC asked BB2014 for a bond. Which is odd.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:22 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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

I put 2 and 2 together (aka, the thing that changed the rfls mind would apparently be this bond) I think the the appearance of this bond, that would assumedly be unaccounted for in the business plan, and the rfls souring towards said business plan would seem to align in an obvious way. Of course, this, along with everything else is nothing more than best guesses at this point by all.

Whilst I'm not tupe experts, I do believe they are responsible for debts as well as assets (otherwise if I set 2 business' up, took out a loan for £100mil, placed in admin, tuped the cash assets over to business 2 and liquidated business 1, I'd have the money with no debt!) hence the okbulls debt to hmrc would at least be part of bb2014s problems?

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:53 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Whilst I'm not tupe experts, I do believe they are responsible for debts as well as assets (otherwise if I set 2 business' up, took out a loan for £100mil, placed in admin, tuped the cash assets over to business 2 and liquidated business 1, I'd have the money with no debt!) hence the okbulls debt to hmrc would at least be part of bb2014s problems?

Transfer of Undetakings (Protection of Employment)
Wherever did you get the idea that cash can be TUPE'd

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:55 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

...
Whilst I'm not tupe experts, I do believe they are responsible for debts as well as assets (otherwise if I set 2 business' up, took out a loan for £100mil, placed in admin, tuped the cash assets over to business 2 and liquidated business 1, I'd have the money with no debt!) hence the okbulls debt to hmrc would at least be part of bb2014s problems?

Not in the least. Your example is with respect complete nonsense. Only employees are TUPE'd across. It has nothing at all to do with assets. It is for protection of employees' rights and status, and nil else. If the old employer went bust that debt sticks with that employer.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:23 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I haven't seen that claim. Where is it?

"and in addition they wanted us to put our houses up as guarantees. If we weren’t in Super League next year they would come after us personally!"

From the Bulls Facebook page as quoted in the long press release quoted by davey999 earlier.

I do think you are hiding behind semantics. You are saying that discussions should have been started by HMRC, and that why should Moore et al contact them to see if they want a six figure bond? Because of the nature of the organisation they were attempting to take over, and that HMRC was a major creditor to the previous administration.

But okay, let's consider the two potential scenarios:
1. Moore t al contact the HMRC and they receive the news that they want their houses as collateral. Moore et al don't even table a bid and you're sunk.
2. Moore et al don't contact the HMRC and the RFL rubber stamp the bid. HMRC turn round and say we won't accept your new business unless you give us your houses as collateral. Moore et al pull out and you are sunk again.

Either way, the only issue is whether the new company was prepared to meet the preconditions set by HMRC. They weren't. Bid over. Who should have contacted whom and who knew what is irrelevant. The outcome is the same.

The ways out would have been if either Moore and the rest had contacted HMRC first and had negotiated the preconditions, but they didn't, or else ask for time from the RFL to contact them and negotiate. Instead, they burned their bridges and its all over.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:54 pm  

Can I ask FA to consider these questions, and see what the outcome would have been:
Knowing the preconditions set by HMRC, should the RFL have raised them with the new owner?
If yes, what have they done wrong?
If no, what would have happened when they found out, and knew the RFL had known along?
How could the situation be different, in the light of the knowledge of the HMRC requirements?

We are not talking about the fairness of the HMRC and who owed who what, but purely how it would have played out any differently.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:20 pm  

Slugger McBatt wrote:

"and in addition they wanted us to put our houses up as guarantees. If we weren’t in Super League next year they would come after us personally!"

Nope. that refers to RFL. It does not refer to HMRC.

Slugger McBatt wrote:

"I do think you are hiding behind semantics.

Do you know what semantics are? I'm simply answering questions and giving my opinions. None of what I have put is remotely "semantics". If you want to trade insults, don't talk to me as I'm not interested.

Slugger McBatt wrote:

"But okay, let's consider the two potential scenarios:
1. Moore t al contact the HMRC and they receive the news that they want their houses as collateral.

You said "potential scenarios". This is not a "potential scenario". You simply misunderstood the statement.

Slugger McBatt wrote:

"2. Moore et al don't contact the HMRC and the RFL rubber stamp the bid. HMRC turn round and say we won't accept your new business unless you give us your houses as collateral. Moore et al pull out and you are sunk again.

Ditto.

Slugger McBatt wrote:

"Either way, the only issue is whether the new company was prepared to meet the preconditions set by HMRC. They weren't. Bid over. Who should have contacted whom and who knew what is irrelevant. The outcome is the same.

Nope. Unless you say MM & Co. are lying, (do you?) they did not have the conversation with HMRC (about any "bond" etc). You'd agree if HMRC have not asked for anything, the new owners can hardly "meet" it?

Slugger McBatt wrote:

"The ways out would have been if either Moore and the rest had contacted HMRC first and had negotiated the preconditions, ...

[/quote]
However many ways you put the same thing, MM & Co. say they never had the conversation, not that they wouldn't have had it if the issue had arisen, nor what they would have said in response. Had the RFL not done a major about face and informed the club of the severe sanctions they had previously indicated wouldn't apply, and more to the point, telling the new owners that if they went ahead, then immediately they'd be in special measures, then any such conversation would at least have had a context in which to happen.

There was in the event no HMRC precondition, and I'm afraid your whole post is based on the misconception not only that there was, but that HMRC had wanted the new owners to put up their houses. If in the future any such discussion had been initiated by HMRC you have no grounds to prejudge the outcome. Your "bid over" mantra is just your unsupported personal opinion based on your huge misconception; HMRC did not ask MM & Co. for a bond, much less to put up their houses.

It seems however that the RFL did want them to put up their houses. Do you think that is a reasonable requirement by the RFL? I don't.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:49 pm  

"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."

The HMRC are insisting on a bond, not the RFL, and this will be the guarantees on their house. The statement refers to "they", as presumably as in the RFL told them, but it is the HMRC requirement, communicated to them by the RFL. Why would the RFL require a bond from the new company?

You keep on referring to the fact the Moore et al haven't had the conversation. The bottom line appears to be that they couldn't meet the requirements of the conversation if they'd had it.

It's fingers in ears stuff. What you haven't indicated is how you think the situation would be any different. The HMRC would still require the bond. Instead of pointing the finger of blame, people should just wonder how it could have been different.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:27 pm  

Slugger I get it - you're on the wind up, pretending not to grasp simple points. No more.

Re: Ownership and twists : Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:23 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

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

The same way that nobody at all sold Carvell and the RFL registered both players. Surely you worked out after what you were told by the RFL about being relegated that they make up the rules as they go along and there is no such thing as precedent, (unless you are talking about the Precedent of America)