Even allowing for the possibility of things worsening in the second half of 2011 the request of 700k loan and then later, the failure to repay any of it were two seperate points at which further checks should have been authorised. As you say, had the necessary reviews taken place at any of these stages there is a strong chance with the support we have that the patient was treatable. Not only did they not intervene they kept the situation secret.

Slightly OT but:
How much did the BB bucket collection raise yesterday?

That's brilliant. Well done.

Not looked in on the Bradford saga for a while, jeez it's a mess isn't it?

Seen lots of posts worrying about being in the Championship next year, don't fear it. It's actually a very competitive and entertaining league and at the top end, the standard is not far off the bottom end of SL.

I hope you get something sorted and manage to stay up, but it really isn't the end of the world if you do come and join in with us.

I'd say there is more concern that there isn't anyone who'd provide the upfront costs and organisation to put together a championship side.

When we went into administration I recall BG made a statement about our debts. It was published in the T & A . The scale of the historic debt (and potential debt ) to HMRC was staggering. From memory it was much higher than some of the figures shown in this thread and seemed to show that there was a history of non payment of PAYE/NIC as well as VAT. In particular I recall that VAT on 2010 &2011 (not 2012) season ticket sales was owed in their entirety. I doubt that the administrator would have published misleading figures given his professional reputation. Nobody with access to the books ,in particular the bidders & the RFL has ever challenged those figures and to me Hood's attempts to explain/dispute have been unconvincing
Adey has remarked on numerous posts that he was surprised at HMRC's speed in serving notices of recovery actions. Although it was claimed by the old board that a repayment programme was in place I guess (I completely accept that it is speculation on my part) that one had been proposed but was never agreed by HMRC as previous payment agreements had been defaulted.
A history of bad debt would explain their haste and explain their reluctance to give the club time to pay. That history and the Revenue's hard line on all pro sport clubs, does not bode well for the eventual settlement.

Not sure that the thing about vat on season tickets has been mentioned by guilfoyle unless I've missed article. Afaik that was a claim made by gurus beard on here.

I think the statement was published in the T & A the day after administration. The season ticket issue was included in a headline box summarising the debts.
I'm sure that Guru did mention it but my source was not him /her but the article.

If we really did have these liabilties I cannot see how thay could failed to have been diclosed in the administration process - so think this can safley be filed in the "unfounded rumours" folder.

Unfortunately we have more than enough verified liabilities already.

No the scale was NOT staggering. It was NOT much higher than expected. The stated tax debt was precisely as expected. Indeed, I was pleased and relieved that it WAS, since it showed that we had NOT been lied to about it.

It was made quite clear that the confirmed debts were exactly as expected, and included:

VAT £250 k for Odsal lease - instalment payments agreed £50k/month May-Sept

Image rights tax (going back years) £250k - payable just underr £7k/month for 3 years, I understand.

PAYE for MAY and JUNE - totally the responsibility of the new board - approx £180k.

Advance of 1 month SKy money from RFL - £110k (that was earlier, presume much higher now). Not really a debt as most people would understand the term - no different to a payday advance in effect.


There was NO specific statement about prior year VAT. I have seen no statemenst saying there are any liabilities assessed or claimed by HMRC. If there WAS, show me where, since I must have missed it, and I will happily retract. What I DID see was some general comment alluding to potential further issues, and mischief-making by one person who clearly had been given access to inside information, on an internet forum, and then some general allusions at the Guidepost meeting. That is all. Maybe some views were taken that are open to challenge, I really could not say? But nowhere have I seen any VAT liabilities beyond the £250k stated and quantified. I guess there must be some VAT due or recoverable on normal trading activities - given the cash flows and losses, I have always assumed that will be minimal if not a refund due.

Hood has stated that the VAT and Image rights tax were subject to agreed payment arrangements with HMRC. I have not seen anyone challenge THAT. Have you? Are you saying he lied? If he DID lie, how come HMRC did not petition for winding up over the unpaid VAT much earlier? If he lied, lets see someone put their head above the parapet and say so? Otherwise, or until then, we are entitled to assume that he told the truth, would you not agree?

There WAS a history of delayed (not non-) payment of PAYE - we werre told in march that Jan and Feb PAYE, due 22/2 and 22/3, had not been paid, and the reasons why. Nothing new there. It is also clear that those sums were subsequently paid, using the pledge money as they had ststed they would. NOTHING new said on this subject by the administrator. If there was, show me where?

Yes I WAS surprised how quickly HMRC allegedly moved, when the NEW board defaulted on the MAY PAYE - that was THEIR responsibility. Note I said the NEW board. And THEIR responsibility. Were they trading whilst insolvent since the Eviction? I am sure that is something the liquidator will want to loook at, if only to see that through their actions (or inaction) they did not make matters worse for the creditors. Here is something: had HMRC actually petitioned for winding up when the administrators were appointed? If so, what triggered it? The non-payment of the May PAYE? That is what surprised me, since that would have involved HMRC petitioning withing 24 hours of the due date - never seen that happen ever, but guess there is always a first time? Or maybe the failure to pay the first agreed VAT instalment when due at end May? In whcih case, the new board will surely have KNOWN what was coming? Yet declined to tell us. I see neither the administrator nor the new board saw fit to coment on all of that?

And if HMRC had NOT petitioned, why were administrators appointed? Had HMRC served notice of what they were going to do? And if so, again what default by the new board triggered it?

There sure ARE issues that the previous board have not explained and need to explain. The single biggest one IMO is where the balance of the lease sale settlement went once the RFL had deducted their loan - I reckon there is around £1/2m that must have been applied somewhere. That has been doing my head in since March, and has never been explained. And you will see from the posts of people like Maiselbugs that I am not the only one to be asking the question. Not suggesting anything sinister, but without more facts people are bound to be concerned. But the issues are NOT primarily over the tax liabilities, nor are they likley to be over the non-tax liabilities either, as far as I can tell. There have been NO surprises there at all regarding the outstanding agreed liabilities with HMRC, from what has been said by the administrator. The numbers are clearly are we have previously been told.

There seem to be some people who think they can take the fans for fools all the time. Not something that the post-eviction camp have any monopoly on, by any means. But if disingenuous or misleading statements are made - by either side - there will always be people watching to set the record straight. And that applies to BOTH sides.

We didn't know about the loan from the RFL even when the purchase of the lease was announced. Whilst not perhaps outright dishonesty it's hard not to regard it as a deceitful omission. I understand your point about the black hole which means the overdraft could have been anywhere from 300k-800k. Considering when the majority of ticket and merchandise income comes into the club what was the scale of the overdraft in October 2011? At a guess, in excess of a £1million.

The T&A stated that their source was P&A.

Adey-- I am sorry that my post upset you so much.
There are few occasions when I disagree with your conclusions but this is one of them. I respect your financial experience and acumen
For the record I am not allied to any side in this whole sorry mess-- I do not know and have never met any of the old or new board members and I think you will find I have been consistent in preferring a completely new set of directors.
I am frustrated that I cannot locate the "summary box" from the T & A on which I based some of my comments-- if anyone can help and post a link I'd be grateful. I took a cutting from the isuue of 26th or 27th June but I passed it to a friend who is away on holiday. Otherwise I'd have copied it so people could judge better.
However I am 99% sure of 2 things-- the T&A showed the administrators as the source (thanks to Cibaman for corroborating this) and the 2010 & 2011 season tickets were included as unpaid tax liabilities. I cannot for the life of me believe that BG would risk his reputation by allowing his company to be effectively quoted in the press-- it was not one of those anonymous/unattributable sources but the P & A Partnership.
The consistent message has been that there are around £1.5 million of debts-- I am just as brassed off as the rest of the fans that this has never been properly analysed. But I cannot see why anyone would overstate the size of the debt.
And that was the point of my post-- not to relive or rake over the past but to say "this is where we are and this is the obstacle any rescue has to overcome".
And finally the most likely reason for HMRC moving to wind up is that the Bulls payment record gave concern. One way or another the scale and background of all the debts will be revealed. In the meantime I suggest we accept that the debts are somewhere around 1.5m and hope that the RFL /SL find a buyer.

Biggest reason I can think of for a sudden rise in the debt figure after admin is the cost of the admin itself, plus the cost of the earlier 'review' which triggered the admin. One thing for sure is the administrator and his company won't be going without their slice of the cake. A plague on all their houses..