: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:55 pm  

MOPSEY LIVES ON wrote:

right i get what you are saying, so why didnt the club try and increase revenue by getting more people to games at a reduced cost. the club would of known the figures lets say after 5 games. how can you budget for 1500 more, if we play rubbish then that figure doesnt add up.

but then you offload players!
atkins goes say 150 k
brough 200 k??
book balanced! but core fans disgruntled!


we did well probably paid a lot of win bonuses, performance bonuses and still we had the same core attendance, as for your point re reduced price attendance....well it seems to annoy the core group of season ticket holders!! in short you cant win!

as we both know what didnt happen last year was the "floaters" coming back, me you and all the daft buggers on here will be there anyway! its those in the pubs and clubs that didnt come...too many night games?, sky games....ever bradfords demise, none of it helped.

: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:56 pm  

MOPSEY LIVES ON wrote:

right i get what you are saying, so why didnt the club try and increase revenue by getting more people to games at a reduced cost. the club would of known the figures lets say after 5 games. how can you budget for 1500 more, if we play rubbish then that figure doesnt add up.

Because then season ticket holders would quite rightly say, "hang on, why am I paying all this money in advance in order to save money over the season when the cost has now come down?" Net result, no take-up of season tickets next season, even less money to budget with in advance, even more chance of going boobs up financially.

: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:00 pm  

RebelRebel wrote:

Because then season ticket holders would quite rightly say, "hang on, why am I paying all this money in advance in order to save money over the season when the cost has now come down?" Net result, no take-up of season tickets next season, even less money to budget with in advance, even more chance of going boobs up financially.

i said that first so your jinxed, and cannot post untill i say your name!

: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:20 pm  

Maybe this is not as bad as it sounds....

My understanding is that it's all about the image rights of the players. Basically the club has been making tax/NIC free payments to players wrapped up as image rights. HMRC has come along done an investigation and identified the problem. What they do then is work out the value of the image rights payments and the value of the tax and NICs owing on them. They can do this for the last 6 tax years. They then charge interest on the total value of the unpaid tax and NIC and then finally assess you for a further penalty for breaking the law.

Quite obviously when HMRC can go back 6 years, then add interest and penalties it all soon adds up to very substantial sum. A number of other clubs are in exactly the same situation.

: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:22 pm  

Boom wrote:

My understanding is that it's all about the image rights of the players.

I can't believe the players have made that much of a cut from that personalised tat on the Wildcats website!

: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:25 pm  

Boom wrote:

Maybe this is not as bad as it sounds....

My understanding is that it's all about the image rights of the players. Basically the club has been making tax/NIC free payments to players wrapped up as image rights. HMRC has come along done an investigation and identified the problem. What they do then is work out the value of the image rights payments and the value of the tax and NICs owing on them. They can do this for the last 6 tax years. They then charge interest on the total value of the unpaid tax and NIC and then finally assess you for a further penalty for breaking the law.

Quite obviously when HMRC can go back 6 years, then add interest and penalties it all soon adds up to very substantial sum. A number of other clubs are in exactly the same situation.

actually that does make sense!

: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:39 pm  

Boom wrote:

Maybe this is not as bad as it sounds....

My understanding is that it's all about the image rights of the players. Basically the club has been making tax/NIC free payments to players wrapped up as image rights. HMRC has come along done an investigation and identified the problem. What they do then is work out the value of the image rights payments and the value of the tax and NICs owing on them. They can do this for the last 6 tax years. They then charge interest on the total value of the unpaid tax and NIC and then finally assess you for a further penalty for breaking the law.

Quite obviously when HMRC can go back 6 years, then add interest and penalties it all soon adds up to very substantial sum. A number of other clubs are in exactly the same situation.

Interesting. I did not have Wakey down as one of the clubs most implicated in the various devices that HMRC have been challenging, although it may explain a few things.

Do you have this on good authority?

I've been puzzled about why this all seemed to have blown up now when it was supposedly resolved in September. Some further research (or more to the point being pointed in the right direction by a legal Southstander) has now clarified for me that:

1. The high court hearing was only yesterday
2. The hearing was merely adjourned, so the petition is still live
3. It seems if Wakey do not find the rest of the money within the time frame then the petition could still proceed and the club could still be put into compulsory liquidation.

This is not quite the spin that your club are putting on it.

Conventional wisdom has it that Wire Stains and Pies are most in the frame over the tax on image rights issue, although the majority of SL clubs were believed to be implicated in some way.

If it IS down to (deemed to be) excessive proportions of player packages being paid as image rights (usually to offshore personal service companies) then you might have another potential problem looming. HMRC "grosses-up" the net payments made to their pre-tax equivalent, and treats the difference as being unpaid tax and NIC (together with adding employers' NIC). As well as a tax bill, this means a sudden retrospective increase in what the club has paid to players. Which would retrospectively increase your salary cap player spend. (See the RFL Operational Rules regarding "grossing up"). This could send clubs so affected over the salary cap, retrospectively (maybe not you guys if you had enough margin?). Will be very interesting to see how the RFL deal with this, especially if any clubs who are NOT implicated cry foul?

Incidentally, I have been assured by the club that Bulls are not exposed here. Guess we'll see, cos sounds like most clubs are in some measure.

: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:50 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

3. It seems if Wakey do not find the rest of the money within the time frame then the petition could still proceed and the club could still be put into compulsory liquidation.

This is not quite the spin that your club are putting on it.

This could send clubs so affected over the salary cap, retrospectively (maybe not you guys if you had enough margin?).

It looks like they've been paying the installments so far lets hope this continues and if the club is touch and go with the money then ASK us the fans.

Secondly, we wont be anywhere near going over the salary cap with the tax implications resulting in higher salaries. We have a considerable margin re the salary cap, I believe where 500k+ under the salary cap.

Hopefully in three months we will pay it all off, but what will the implications, it is quite evident we didnt have this money stashed away, did we get it from the richardson family so will the profits (if any) go to the family and not towards the upkeep / funding for the stadium issues.

Has Mr France injected some more capital ? has he guaranteed the sponsership of an up & coming stadium or ground naming rights?

Anyway .... We need good news when is this planning application going IN .

First september then october now middle of november any further set backs, It'll be intresting to see what John Huxley reacts to these issues.

: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:14 pm  

Anyway .... We need good news when is this planning application going IN .

First september then october now middle of november any further set backs, It'll be intresting to see what John Huxley reacts to these issues.[/quote]
dont hold out hope for any good news on the ground front, i have seen all these setbacks before with our (aledged) new ground and we are about 2 years in front of you guys, i am affraid all you have to look forward to is more setbacks, all you have to hope for is that you have not gone bust by the time you get the ground sorted if it ever does get sorted that is

: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:36 pm  

RebelRebel wrote:

There's only one question for me, and that's based on the sale of BV. Most people on here only found out this season that the ground had been sold to clear outstanding debts. The figures mentioned at the time indicated that there was still a substantial amount in the war chest for other projects, and a final payment on the ground was still to be made. I don't have the facts at my fingertips, so I'm relying on dodgy memory here, but even taking this into account, I would have thought a debt like this would be covered comfortably by the money remaining from the sale of the stadium. I'm not trying to stoke the fires here, but for me, it just doesn't add up, even when you factor in the decline in revenue from this season. We must have had one pretty shocking season financially for all this to make sense.

The figures I seem to remember are £2.3 mill now i dont know if thats the total amount for the ground or what we have been paid so far, or what we are due in the future.

Where has this money gone have we seen it all. ?

Id like rebelrebels question answered. TRB
This is your field.