So if you only take on lads who have already got a job, do you not have to pay um min wage, as theyll be getting their min wage from their main employer, just a thought.

This is wrong. The money was already spent.

Vaughan left the club on the eve of our opening game in the Co-op NL 2007 season. In other words, Vaughan was still in charge when the players were recruited, and had already gone through pre-season and the early rounds of the NRC. Only then did he walk out. As it happens, our first game was on Sky and the commentary team mentioned it and even showed the local paper covering the story.

Those remaining board members were left holding the baby and then had a choice to make; either fold the club there and then, or try and make it to the end of the season paying the players out of their own pockets. I think the latter option was preferable.

Stephen Vaughan, and no-one else, was responsible for the mess Widnes found themselves in.

Did the other directors not have any duties of responsibility?

Stephen Vaughan ruled the roost once he took over. I believe he caused murder in the board room. He even wanted the rest of the board to sign an agreement to be responsible for the debts he was racking up. When they, rightly, refused, he walked out.

He made the decisions which brought the club to it’s knees and brought it in to disrepute with his V.A.T fraud. He now has a clear track record of sending sporting clubs into administration. The previous board, many of which remained at the time, struggled but managed to keep the club afloat. I believe they broke even while Widnes were in SL.

Vaughan is the culprit.

Only if they don't have contracts and are only being paid expenses. Nothing to stop clubs doing that of course, but it will mean less chance of holding onto any youngster who shows promise and will also make them ineligible for first team duty in case of injuries.

How long was he at Widnes?

About 18 months, I think.

A club in the Championship would struggle to do that anyway. But if they showed promise then they would be given a professional contract from the club

That's quite a long time to do nothing. If they were unable to prevent him from acting in that way in the boardroom or were being kept in the dark by someone ignoring the law with regard to company governance, surely their only option was to resign their positions or otherwise they would be in breach of their duties to the shareholders?

I am sure it was a difficult position to be in, but I cannot see how they can absolve all responsibility for what happened.

btw I don't know the technical name but I liked the joke (truism?) at the bottom of your post. It made me laugh out loud in the office.

Like you say, they were in a difficult position. It would be difficult to judge just how much blame could be heaped on the other board members, without knowing what they knew of Vaughan’s dealings, or when he put in place his VAT scam.

Vaughan was the major shareholder and chairman of the club. The reason Vaughan was brought in, in the first place, was because the then chairman, Tony Chambers, was looking at having to shut down the very successful academy side and cut the costs of the first team for the 2007 season. With the loss of Sky TV revenue, &c, the stadium rental costs became a massive burden and the club was in growing debt to Halton Borough Council, plus they had a £50,000 VAT bill. Before Chambers and the board could take action, Stephen Vaughan approached the club (Late 2005 – early 2006) with an offer to buy out TC, pay off any debt, continue to field a strong first team and keep our RFL accredited “world class” academy teams going.

He did this, but then refused to pay for it all, thus amassing further debt, which became more than the club could pay back. He then left, after not getting agreement from the other board members to foot the bills themselves and walked, leaving the club insolvent the day before our first game of the 2007 Co-op NL1 season. He didn’t even pay TC for his shares.

So, the other board members would have found it difficult to stand up to the man, without running the risk of him walking out and, as he was already spending more than we would have under TC, it probably would have been too late anyway. Obviously, the benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Vaughan was the problem. The old board may not have been the most professional of outfits, but what they did, they did in good faith imo. They were certainly not as directly responsible for amassing the debts, which sent the club into administration, as tb is trying to make out.

And here's me thinking that tb frowned upon people who conveniently rewrite history...

Quote: Derwent "Its more likely to mean that its the only way HMRC could get any money back. If they'd wound the club up they would have got nothing as the club has no tangible assets to speak of that the official receiver could sell to distribute funds to creditors. Its pointless to wind up a company that has no assets, except to prevent them from accruing more debt if they carried on trading. By letting them go into administration the administrator will try to find a buyer for the business. Any price paid for the purchase of the business will then go to pay off creditors at a % in the £. If they owed £750k and the business was bought for £75k, as an example, then creditors would receive 10p for every £1 owed to them. HMRC's logic will be that its better to have something, even if its only 10%, than nothing.'" Or as the news story states the debt has been paid www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort ... s-11766553

Quote: Derwent "Its more likely to mean that its the only way HMRC could get any money back. If they'd wound the club up they would have got nothing as the club has no tangible assets to speak of that the official receiver could sell to distribute funds to creditors. Its pointless to wind up a company that has no assets, except to prevent them from accruing more debt if they carried on trading. By letting them go into administration the administrator will try to find a buyer for the business. Any price paid for the purchase of the business will then go to pay off creditors at a % in the £. If they owed £750k and the business was bought for £75k, as an example, then creditors would receive 10p for every £1 owed to them. HMRC's logic will be that its better to have something, even if its only 10%, than nothing.'" Or as the news story states the debt has been paid www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort ... s-11766553

I'm suggesting that having wrecked three other clubs (2 RU, 1 soccer), it was pretty obvious that LS would do the same to Crusaders. It is not like people were only wise after the event.

Does that mean Wigan are going to be booted out of the Super League on account of when they had players playing free of charge a couple of years ago?