Cibaman wrote:
Had to smile at "2.01% of turnover". When you're teetering on the brink like the Bulls, £250k is a big deal however its dressed up (or down).
Sorry cibaman will get to yours but I have to add to mats first: yes, strange, Frank the W@nk is missing, but so too is Garrulous Blackbeard. big time.
to comment on your comment. the Leeds settlement, subject to Adey pulling his finger(s) and the Bulls Stats Accounts out and confirming or refuting my calculations, was circa £350K, and we paid it quite successfully over 3 years, just as this smaller amount of £250k is supposed to be. the VAT bill is to be paid over 5 months (thats the one I have difficulty believing is manageable but assuming it is), that leaves us teetering on the brink of extinction right now because of £82000 PAYE. I notice that Hood, who should know, asserted than none of Caisleys camp had pledged a single penny. That tells you everything you need to know about their intentions. £82K to a partner in a leading international law firm and all his buddies... small change.
And the investors/sponsors dont want to put their money in because of this sudden intervention by HMRC? Has strong resonances of Caisley the Thursday before Pledge Date, seeing off Hoods investors. I am not saying that was intentional, as I really do believe it was a knee jerk reaction by Caisley to Hoods ambiguous message about achieving the target. What I am saying is, if you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
when you balance up the figures it is back to the simple basic issue of trading at a loss and the cash flow consequences of that situation. if income exceeded expenditure, no problem with VAT and PAYE. And it was my prediction that Coulby would find no easy answers to that situation given Hood and Bennett had thrown everything at it for the last few years. Reinvent the wheel? No chance.
Nothus To underline Adeys point: would you want to have your company name associated with Odsal? When commentators can only go on about its iconic status and its history rather than its state of the art facilities you know there is a problem. and with 85 employees, an expensive problem, as Caisley said in 2003 when the stadium staff costs were much lower.