Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:23 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

A simple expedient if you have the cash

You did have the cash though. You deduct tax and NI from salaries and you have the cash. You charge and receive VAT and you have the cash.

You could pay all such cash into a Tax Payable separate bank account and no issue would ever arise.

If by the time you come to pay your HMRC bill you no longer have the cash, that is simply because you have taken HMRC's money and spent it.

If HMRC go for winding up for not paying what you owe but you neither get wound up nor pay what you owe then that's well within any reasonable definition of a "trick". It is a perfectly legal and widespread trick, if done within the relevant rules, but a trick nonetheless.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:24 pm  

Just posted by Mandy K

Mandy Koukash ‏@MandyKoukash 48s
"Well done to Mr Green. Very disappointed with the outcome. Twice I attempted to increase my bid. GOOD LUCK TO BRADFORD"

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:31 pm  

Duckman wrote:

No, without the cash being available, Marc Green has said it was Admin or Liquidation. The RFL want to know if the Bulls had the cash to pay but choose Admin to avoid the debt instead.

I think the argument of Moore et al was that they were in the process of taking over the club when this Marc Green guy comes along and puts them in admin. They were saying that had he waited a few weeks then the new owners could have taken control and paid HMRC, thus avoiding admin.

Marc Green is saying that admin was not avoidable, and there was no cash there, so it was that or liquidation. It's the line in the RFL statement "Amongst other things, they would assess whether the administration was avoidable" that worries me. Marc Green will obviously say it wasn't aviodable, so therefore has no grounds to appeal. Unless of course he is paying all creditors back in full, which I'm sure he would have said by now if he was. Time will tell I suppose.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:32 pm  

Gotch ya! On the cheap.
What a farce – block every bid by being hand in glove with your appointed administrator, fool the RFL (easy) – got yourself a club.
I wonder if he has shown his £1,000,000 to the RFL or just bought the pies?

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:35 pm  

daveyz999 wrote:

Just posted by Mandy K

Mandy Koukash ‏@MandyKoukash 48s
"Well done to Mr Green. Very disappointed with the outcome. Twice I attempted to increase my bid. GOOD LUCK TO BRADFORD"

Promised to invest 1 million quid, pay creditors, do there best to keep the Bulls in super league. Wouldn't surprise me if Mrs Koukash tells them to pi$$ off if they come begging for investment when the $hit hits the fan with the way she's been treated.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:40 pm  

Duckman wrote:

No, without the cash being available, Marc Green has said it was Admin or Liquidation.

You need Marc green to tell you that?

Duckman wrote:

The RFL want to know if the Bulls had the cash to pay but choose Admin to avoid the debt instead.

Nah, you go into admin to get protection from your creditors BECAUSE you don't have the cash to pay. A business that "had the cash to pay" must, er, pay. And anyway if the business "had the cash to pay" how would it avoid payment by administration? What do you think would happen to that cash?

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:42 pm  

Well it's nice to see the lovely welcome that the new owner has got on here.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:48 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

Well it's nice to see the lovely welcome that the new owner has got on here.

After years of putting up with rubbish we're entitled to welcome the new owner however we like.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:48 pm  

It seems very underhand and something shifty going on for my liking.

Wonder if he has the Koukash's on speed dial?

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:48 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You need Marc green to tell you that?

clearly not.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Nah, you go into admin to get protection from your creditors BECAUSE you don't have the cash to pay. A business that "had the cash to pay" must, er, pay. And anyway if the business "had the cash to pay" how would it avoid payment by administration? What do you think would happen to that cash?

I know. Which is what Im getting at, the rfl sanctions are if you had the cash somewhere but didnt pay at the time of going into admin. So Admin is unavoidable at the time of admin because of no cash - obviously it was avoidable if we had the cash or paid on time, but we didnt and we didnt, and i didnt think i needed to type that.