Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:31 am  

Derwent wrote:

Adeybull, on the point of not punishing current owners - surely you accept that the current owners have to accept some of the blame for the liabilities to HMRC which have gone unpaid for months during their stewardship ? This in itself is a serious breach of the Operational Rules which can bring a misconduct charge from the RFL. To say they should be completely absolved is a little disingenuous - they are at least partly responsible for those non-payments.

Important point you raise, although we maybe risk confusing two separate issues?

My point is that the business going forward should not be punished - by points deductions or financial penalty - for the sins of the previous owners.

We hit an unusual grey area in the Bulls' case, because we had 4 months where we had people running the business who did not own it.

What we do not know is what PAYE or VAT has not been paid, and for what period. Given that HMRC take strong action with clubs, especially ones with a track record like Bradford's, very quickly now once payments fall overdue, I doubt we are talk proctracted overdues. What I am fully expecting is that, because the board stood down before Christmas, they did not/could not/would not pay the November PAYE, due 22/12, triggering the HMRC action in mid-January. That will surely be the mimimum. Given that the ownership impasse continued in January, and the board will surely have fully appreciated the implications of trading whilst insolvent and preferring one creditor over another, I'd fully expect to see December PAYE unpaid too. But its all conjecture.

Do you actually KNOW the liabilities have "gone unpaid for months", or is that conjecture? I ask because I really do not know.

Given the RFL seem to have been heavily involved throughout all the process, I'm sure they will have been be fully aware of whatever the position was. And I cannot believe they would sanction or support anything that looked to lead to loss to HMRC - because they DARE not. After the Crusaders debacle, and the threats to sports and other bodies about loss of public funding should they not have strong processes in place to try to stop such defaults. Again, conjecture.

I have been taking the prospective new owners - who ran it as stewards since October, at their word when they intend to settle with the (third-party) creditors. My understanding is that they intend to settle them all, but we will have to see by actions not words.

IF they settle the HMRC creditor, and provided they can demonstrate that they had no option other than the one they took regarding delayting payment until all this mess was sorted, and assuming the RFL concurred, then I can't see why there should be need for any future sanctions. On the club or on them. IF.

If they do NOT subsequently settle the creditor, then UNLESS they can demonstrate they were blameless in the default, acted in utmost good faith and that the RFL had concurred with their actions, then - under the existing precedent - the ongoing club will have to be hit with penalties. And, given the same people are involved, you would expect quite severely. And rightly so.

That is my view, anyway.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:37 am  

dboy wrote:

By "previous owners", Bulls fans want us to think only of Khan.

The 3 current directors were there prior to the latest crash and were responsible for the running of the club.

Since early October. If they acted in good faith, with the correct intentions, took the only realistic course of action as it seemed at the time, and worked with the RFL and with its concurrence, then I see no problem.

If it is shown that they did NOT do these things, then it won't just be us who will be down heavy on them. The administrator will have an intersting report to write to the authorities, and they could be facing personal liabilities.

So far, everything I have seen points to the first. Should it ever become apparent that it is more the second, be in no doubt of my reaction. Write that down someplace.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:03 am  

Accepting good faith, we then have to question competence.

Pretty sure all these characters were involved with Bulls throughout last year, not just since Autumn.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:07 am  

Adeybull wrote:

Important point you raise, although we maybe risk confusing two separate issues?

My point is that the business going forward should not be punished - by points deductions or financial penalty - for the sins of the previous owners.

We hit an unusual grey area in the Bulls' case, because we had 4 months where we had people running the business who did not own it.

What we do not know is what PAYE or VAT has not been paid, and for what period. Given that HMRC take strong action with clubs, especially ones with a track record like Bradford's, very quickly now once payments fall overdue, I doubt we are talk proctracted overdues. What I am fully expecting is that, because the board stood down before Christmas, they did not/could not/would not pay the November PAYE, due 22/12, triggering the HMRC action in mid-January. That will surely be the mimimum. Given that the ownership impasse continued in January, and the board will surely have fully appreciated the implications of trading whilst insolvent and preferring one creditor over another, I'd fully expect to see December PAYE unpaid too. But its all conjecture.

Do you actually KNOW the liabilities have "gone unpaid for months", or is that conjecture? I ask because I really do not know.

Given the RFL seem to have been heavily involved throughout all the process, I'm sure they will have been be fully aware of whatever the position was. And I cannot believe they would sanction or support anything that looked to lead to loss to HMRC - because they DARE not. After the Crusaders debacle, and the threats to sports and other bodies about loss of public funding should they not have strong processes in place to try to stop such defaults. Again, conjecture.

I have been taking the prospective new owners - who ran it as stewards since October, at their word when they intend to settle with the (third-party) creditors. My understanding is that they intend to settle them all, but we will have to see by actions not words.

IF they settle the HMRC creditor, and provided they can demonstrate that they had no option other than the one they took regarding delayting payment until all this mess was sorted, and assuming the RFL concurred, then I can't see why there should be need for any future sanctions. On the club or on them. IF.

If they do NOT subsequently settle the creditor, then UNLESS they can demonstrate they were blameless in the default, acted in utmost good faith and that the RFL had concurred with their actions, then - under the existing precedent - the ongoing club will have to be hit with penalties. And, given the same people are involved, you would expect quite severely. And rightly so.

That is my view, anyway.

Thanks for the reply, I agree with much of what you say.

In terms of liabilities to HMRC, I am of course just assuming like you, but I would estimate at least 3 months worth of unpaid dues as no doubt January's (due about now) will have gone unpaid too.

I would expect that Operational Rules A3:1 and A3:2 would be in force in this case, although it is clear that not all special measures have been imposed as the club is still able to register players (which, incidentally, when Whitehaven went into administration owing HMRC they were not allowed to sign any players for 9 months).

BTW, I saw a list of the assets which transferred to OK Bulls from Bradford Bulls Holdings the other day - what/where is York House (GBV of £1.07m, NBV of £880k) ?

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:16 am  

dboy wrote:

Accepting good faith, we then have to question competence.

Pretty sure all these characters were involved with Bulls throughout last year, not just since Autumn.

Mark Moore was involved with the club before Mr Khan stood down at the end of September although it's not been stated in what role but he wasn't a director. Hi company had been a sponsor before that.
Ian Watt and Andrew Calvert became involved after Mr Khan stood down.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:23 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

Solly Blake statement 1st February:

Blake Solly, the RFL’s director of licensing and standards, confirmed the change of ownership would not affect the central money allocated to the Bulls and that the club would again receive only half of the usual amount for the second successive year.

Not half the amount the other clubs receive, but half the usual (= annual). amount.

Or 48.17% of the other clubs.

I'd love to see the thinking behind this decision. If indeed thinking has even come into it.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:38 am  

childofthenorthern wrote:

Mark Moore was involved with the club before Mr Khan stood down at the end of September although it's not been stated in what role but he wasn't a director. Hi company had been a sponsor before that.
Ian Watt and Andrew Calvert became involved after Mr Khan stood down.

RHP was there long before, as CEO and I believe is now a director??

Is the suggestion that he didn't know what was going on?

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:42 am  

Robbie only became CEO after OK relinquished control. http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... le/?ref=rl Within weeks all the 'hole in the budget' stuff came out.

Robbie only became CEO after OK relinquished control. http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... le/?ref=rl Within weeks all the 'hole in the budget' stuff came out.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:53 am  

Interesting piece in todays Yorkshire Post http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6450687 RHP suggesting that there'll be another TUPE 'window' if any bid other than BB2014 is accepted, and that more players may decide to leave Scaremongering? Or genuine?

Interesting piece in todays Yorkshire Post http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-6450687 RHP suggesting that there'll be another TUPE 'window' if any bid other than BB2014 is accepted, and that more players may decide to leave Scaremongering? Or genuine?

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:58 am  

dboy wrote: RHP was there long before, as CEO and I believe is now a director?? Is the suggestion that he didn't know what was going on? He joined as business development manager at the end of June, with the aim of marketing and bringing in sponsors, and was appointed CEO when Mr Khan left at the end of September. So he'd been there 3 months when Mr Khan left. What he did or didn't know can only be speculation but I doubt he had full access to the accounts. http://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_13408-robbie-hunter-paul-appointed-ceo-at-bradford.html http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12213/8797759/Super-League-Bradford-Bulls-legend-Robbie-Hunter-Paul-back-at-Odsal-in-business-role

dboy wrote: RHP was there long before, as CEO and I believe is now a director?? Is the suggestion that he didn't know what was going on? He joined as business development manager at the end of June, with the aim of marketing and bringing in sponsors, and was appointed CEO when Mr Khan left at the end of September. So he'd been there 3 months when Mr Khan left. What he did or didn't know can only be speculation but I doubt he had full access to the accounts. http://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_13408-robbie-hunter-paul-appointed-ceo-at-bradford.html http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12213/8797759/Super-League-Bradford-Bulls-legend-Robbie-Hunter-Paul-back-at-Odsal-in-business-role