Adeybull, just get the KEO in and enjoy hallumi rolls

"united we stand , divided we fall"

I know it's an old one but the fans seem to have got it

Exactly, implicit in my post. No strategy...or is there?

GB, when you posted about the membership VAT issue, I doubted not that there was such an issue but that Hood would have taken such a step without advice, for which there should be a PI policy (but theres no chance of any payout on that!), or if he didnt then he was negligent not to cover his backside. And of course I dont expect PnA to advise on teh future, my point is that the only bit of the strategy we can see is the statement of intent to enter Administration.

Interestingly theres no major drop in Paye and other taxes balances in creditors due within one year in the 2010 accounts from 2009, indeed they are nearly identical at just over £110K, which subject to VAT quarter ends etc does not tally with the two year timeframe, tho there is from 2008 to 9 a drop from c. £200k to £110k. As I recall the first pledge combined cheap "next season" tickets and a number of deals including 5 and 10 year and lifelong...membership. Do you know if ALL of these were nil/zero rated or just for example the lifelong ones? Its just that say gate sales are £2m a year, thats say £800K VAT over 2 years, which makes for a massive hole that surely would have lead to admin straight off when the books were opened up to PnA, and would have led to a more intransigent stance about paying the lease VAT in monthly instalments, if you believe Hood. Thats the trouble with black holes: no light can get out. (Post Script: just googled, 2011 pledge was for 10000 "memberships", but that is still no indication of whether lifetime, 10 years etc would be differently accounted for VAT).

What part of my previous post was incoherent?

i really do feel for you Bulls fans, well the ones that will buy a season ticket next year at full price at least.

The rest of you can go back to watching football.

I find the VAT issue just too incredible to believe. Mainly because it it is true and the VAT liability had been established, wouldnt the new Board have been shouting it from the roof tops?

Because Peter, it's true. As you well know.

You also know that HMRC wouldn't issue a winding up order if an AGREEMENT had been made (particularly if you are suggesting you 'arranged' this some months ago) over a 5 month period. That tells me much of what I need to know.

Shame on you for your continual lies that has got us to this position. You might be fooling yourself, but you ain't fooling me or the vast majority of Bulls fans.

I dont know how they have been able to miss paying vat for 2 years.
They would of have reminders and late payment fees added over that time.

Well GB, think PH knows what "calumny" means. Because you obviuosly don't!

Likewise - if the club had suddenly gone from being a VAT creditor to a VAT debtor, I would be very surprised if the HMRC did not come out to investigate before making any VAT repayments back to the club. I had a similar situation at work and before HMRC released the VAT repayment they insisted on conducting an audit to ensure there was no impropriety.

rlhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18437695rl

The above article goes into a little more detail, but contains no mention of any additional VAT money owing, apart from the sale of the stadium.

"The club owes HM Revenue & Customs £90,000 in payroll tax, plus £250,000 in VAT from the sale of the stadium.

The Bulls need more than £1m to survive to the end of the season, despite recently raising £500,000 through fan pledges, gate receipts and an auction.

It now has two weeks to raise funds or find new investment.

The figures were passed to BBC Radio Leeds by Brendan Guilfoyle of The P&A Partnership, the company brought in by the club to review the state of its finances."

Peter, your ability to perform a role as 'Bottom' in a Shakespearean play continues with your malapropisms.

Since calumny refers to slander (and not libel, which the written word relates to) your use of the term is thoroughly incorrect.

Secondly, it would only be either slander or libel if it was untrue and you chose to challenge that legally. Be my guest.

Oh, and learn to spell "obviously".

You continue to be full of ironies. And untruths.

I think the insinuation is that they never included VAT on the season tickets, hence HMRC wouldn't have initially known there was a VAT liability to send them reminders about. .