It's been put on hold. Which makes sense as I believe the original reasoning behind it was a dispute between the Club and HMRC over VAT payments with the club providing evidence as to why they had paid, in their opinion, the correct amount of VAT and HMRC throwing their toys out the pram and issuing a WUP

So why not dismissed if it is as clear cut as you say

I don't think the poster ever said it was "clear cut".

As I see it, the quibble was with the HMRC attitude of shooting first and only then asking questions.

I am still perplexed as to how Bradford and Featherstone can register players while both clubs had/have winding up orders against them.

Back in 2013 you were in 'special measures' but this year you bring in an Australian coach and players from the NRL.

rl2013 - A Different Ball Gamerl

I have heard rumours that the RFL lack consistency,though

I thought it was the build up and start of the 2014 season when we were in 'special measures'.Whilst we were in administration waiting for Green to take ownership which was announced (IIRC) at the end of March that year?

No sky money and no signing new players.

The High Court, in dealing with the WUP, are there essentially as a debt collection vehicle. They would not make any decisions on whether or not the liability was actually correct (That would be a Tribunal). If there's still an ongoing dispute, the Court may adjourn a hearing in order for the dispute to be settled or for HMRC to consider some argument/evidence put forward by the club.

I'm sure I saw a tweet from Mick G the other day saying everyone had been paid (in relation to a question about the WUP). Though with all due respect to you Mick, I'll wait to hear something official before breathing a sigh of relief.

Well, that would be because they have actually NOT had winding up orders against them.


No. We weren't. Sadly, the company went tits and is now in liquidation. A new buyer bought the remains of the business and the club started afresh, with a huge handicap. It may be skint, but has never been in special measures, either.


And?? Do you have a point in there somewhere, trying to get out?

Ah, the above poster getting his daily pedantry out the way!

Come on FA. You really do like to put people down at every opportunity.
It is possible to explain things without appearing all high and mighty.

That last line is what I mean. Was that needed. I expect that from teenagers not a wise, older person.
You write very good points but there is no need to pick apart every point to get one over someone.

The last line is the worst though. Having said we have had a winding up order made, and that having been in special measures we shouldn't be allowed to get an Aus coach etc., it finished off by inferring that we have been allowed to "get away with it" by the inconsistent RFL.

I would "explain" if I thought it was needed. IMHO the OP was plain malicious and I just set it straight. If you're happy with false claims, and bagging us for getting Smith then it's a free country but I don't feel the need to be all lovely dovey with stirrers popping up and having a go.

I thought the Mick Gledhill tweet was in regards every staff member had been paid???

I don't feel lovey dovey and didn't bag you for getting Smith,safe in the knowledge that anything I type out on here won't change anything.

I did try and couch the post in such terms that I considered 'friendly' - after all you BB supporters p

It's a petition at the minute. It's not an order.

Yes. The point FA was trying to make in his own slightly ar$ey style (justified or not), was that there is a difference between a Winding Up Petition and a Winding Up Order. Bradford and Featherstone were subject to a Petition, not an Order.

And also the point that it was the previous holding company that was put in special measures, not the current one. So the current Bradford Bulls have never technically been in that state.

Maybe. There were a couple of questions asked in reply to one of his tweet. One was about the WUP and the other was just "any news yet?"

The tweet I was referring to was a reply to the second question, so I'd read it as relating to the WUP but perhaps I was wrong.