Re: Accounts : Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:31 am  

Listenup94 wrote:

Playing devil's advocate if we did owe what the hmrc is stating then we would have either been wound up or paid it by now .

Or, if Fax didnt owe what HMRC is stating, the judge would have thrown it out at yesterday's hearing.

I imagine its a historical debt (so I have sympathy for the incumbents in having to sort the issue) but I assume they fully understood all historical liabilities before their takeover. And if not, is that a failure on their part from the due diligence process, or were things hidden from them?

Re: Accounts : Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:55 am  

To add to the confusion, the winding up petition is against the old Halifax RL company which has been dormant for 8 years, past the time financial records need to be kept, and there are clearly no assets to pay any debts anyway. If I remember rightly, the HMRC didn't pursue the Halifax Stadium Development Company Ltd for monies owed because of the state of the company's accounting records?

Re: Accounts : Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:58 am  

There are a number of reasons why this isn't clear cut and is being argued between the HMRC and the club in it's current form.

For example both the winding up petitions company numbers show they haven't been served against the club in it's current form but against the club under a different name under different ownership that was registered as being dormant a decade ago.

This raises a number of issues which in this current context involves tax liabilities.

1.) Any company from the date it is registered as being dormant ceases trading and has no tax liabilities after that date unless it starts trading again under that name, which hasn't happened in this case.

However the owners / directors / those who were responsible for that company are still accountable for any tax liabilities from any tax year periods when they were trading before registering as being dormant.

2.) This raises the question of whether the club in it's current form under a different name with different ownership can be held accountable for the liabilities from the previous now dormant company as if inheriting their debt.

Two things are being challenged and debated, not only the amount but if the club in it's current form are even responsible for it in the first place.

No wonder we don't understand the legal position or can predict the outcome but that's why the club have engaged a legal team of experts to handle it and for me as frustrating as it is to see it drag on and on and on what will be will be and leave it to them.

Re: Accounts : Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:04 pm  

Bubba wrote:

Or, if Fax didnt owe what HMRC is stating, the judge would have thrown it out at yesterday's hearing.

I imagine its a historical debt (so I have sympathy for the incumbents in having to sort the issue) but I assume they fully understood all historical liabilities before their takeover. And if not, is that a failure on their part from the due diligence process, or were things hidden from them?

I believe there is some truth over the historical debts. Not totally defending the current board, but if you look at the shift in our financial position in the last trading year of the old board, its suggests a fast deteriorating picture. Was the new board made aware of this or should they have picked this up in any due diligence? But might explain why most of the old board were "happy" to hand over the reins and their shares, so I believe.

Re: Accounts : Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:09 pm  

I'm not sure the 130,000 owing on the dormant account is related to the issue with the hmrc .

Re: Accounts : Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:50 pm  

faxcar wrote:

For example both the winding up petitions company numbers show they haven't been served against the club in it's current form but against the club under a different name under different ownership that was registered as being dormant a decade ago.

This raises a number of issues which in this current context involves tax liabilities.

1.) Any company from the date it is registered as being dormant ceases trading and has no tax liabilities after that date unless it starts trading again under that name, which hasn't happened in this case.

However the owners / directors / those who were responsible for that company are still accountable for any tax liabilities from any tax year periods when they were trading before registering as being dormant.

2.) This raises the question of whether the club in it's current form under a different name with different ownership can be held accountable for the liabilities from the previous now dormant company as if inheriting their debt.

Two things are being challenged and debated, not only the amount but if the club in it's current form are even responsible for it in the first place.

No wonder we don't understand the legal position or can predict the outcome but that's why the club have engaged a legal team of experts to handle it and for me as frustrating as it is to see it drag on and on and on what will be will be and leave it to them.

The problem is in understanding the set up. The WUP was issued against the company set up when Stephen Pearson saved the club in the early 2000's. Wasnt the club run as some form of member ownership scheme at the time?

The 'trading company' was set up a few years later, when Howard Posner became involved and the club became a more traditionally owned company (shareholders) rather than members.

Then the PK2022 (or whatever it is called) was the company used as a takeover vehicle when the consortium took over a couple of years ago. This company owns the other two existing companies and has common directors.

I can only assume the original (Halifax RLFC) company holds the membership with the RFL which is why it has never been liquidated.

New owners of an existing company are still liable for any historical liabilities hence my other post questioning the due diligence. For quite a few years, the dormant company has shown a negative balance sheet of the £133k. What this is, who knows? But there is obviously a reason this company wasnt liquidated when the trading company was formed and a reason why HMRC are persuing it.

Re: Accounts : Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:31 pm  

Bubba wrote:

The problem is in understanding the set up. The WUP was issued against the company set up when Stephen Pearson saved the club in the early 2000's. Wasnt the club run as some form of member ownership scheme at the time?

The 'trading company' was set up a few years later, when Howard Posner became involved and the club became a more traditionally owned company (shareholders) rather than members.

Then the PK2022 (or whatever it is called) was the company used as a takeover vehicle when the consortium took over a couple of years ago. This company owns the other two existing companies and has common directors.

I can only assume the original (Halifax RLFC) company holds the membership with the RFL which is why it has never been liquidated.

New owners of an existing company are still liable for any historical liabilities hence my other post questioning the due diligence. For quite a few years, the dormant company has shown a negative balance sheet of the £133k. What this is, who knows? But there is obviously a reason this company wasnt liquidated when the trading company was formed and a reason why HMRC are persuing it.

The problem is getting HMRC and the club to reach a resolution and sooner or later they will have to with the next date of Jan being set to do so.

The negative balance figure is shown as "other creditors" so likely linked to old directors and anything owing to the HMRC of any amount never mind £133k they certainly wouldn't have waited for nearly 10 years to pursue it.

We don't have to and very likely can't fully understand the setup and one of the reason why there hasn't been a bigger disclosure is precisely because of how complicated it would be for the club to try and explain it and the layman to grasp that's why there is a specialist legal team working on it on behalf of the club and they will be fully aware of all the history and how that applies to the current dispute of 2024 and the best way forward.

PS: On due diligence, failures and things being hidden the 133k you mentioned like has been said has been clearly visible on companies house accounts for nearly 10 years for everyone to see.

There doesn’t have to be and isn’t some conspiracy theory or negligence that can be levelled at the club on every instance much as some would like there to be.

Re: Accounts : Fri Dec 06, 2024 2:37 pm  

which begs the question of who foots the legal bill...

Re: Accounts : Fri Dec 06, 2024 2:57 pm  

Miserybusiness wrote:

which begs the question of who foots the legal bill...

Normally whoever the judgement goes against but there nothing normal about this one and there’s the court bill to pay and the legal team which won’t be cheap.

Re: Accounts : Fri Dec 06, 2024 4:28 pm  

I wouldn't worry danny sawrij n the fraines ll sort it out . Wasn't gonna say anything as I was sworn to secrecy but someone's dropped it on shaymen.net anyway .