Why?

Does not follow at all.

What is more worrying is today's [url=http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/10/11/02/RUGBYL_Crusaders.html=#800000report[/url that pension contributions - going back a fair way -have seemingly not been paid over. If that should prove to be true, you are talking serious criminal offences here.

AFAIK, The RFL’s advice to the clubs regarding back payment of image rights was to hold fire until Leeds challenge against HMRC, funded by the RFL, in limiting the percentage owed in back payments was resolved.

Unfortunately the case officer for Wakefield’s wasn’t willing to wait until the issued had been collectively resolved and wanted the tax liabilities from Trinity.

Why doesn't it follow? Both the Rugby and Football come under the same company don't they?

didnt Widnes go bust 2 years ago and have to be reformed??

No, we went into administration and the club was sold to Steve O Connor.

So the frequent assertion by some some wakey posters that the wakey case was the test case is utter rubbish. We agree.

The suggestion that a high evel agreement between HMRC and the RFL has been overruled by a rogue 'case officer' is quaint.

There is no agreement, hence the Leeds case.

As the Leeds case is not about establishing liability in itself but rather about the size of that liability, HMRC are under no obligation to postpone collection in similar cases until it is determined by the courts.

Yes there is.

According to the BBC website (which I'm sure you are all capable of finding on your own), the pension problem goes back (suprise, suprise) to the Leighton Samuel era and the club will be making a statement later. However it also describes the winding up petition as 'unconfirmed', which we know it isn't.

I did wonder that, surely a journo would know first point of call would be the HMRC website to see if it was up there. No club is going to come out shouting about it are they.

Very poor by all involved to leave Samuel's debts hanging though... surely the first thing a new owner does is sort the old one's mess out so then they have a clean slate to start with? It's interesting Widnes were told we cannot fully distance ourselves from the previous regieme... what will happen here? I have seen a few mentions to 'new club' but it does seem to be when the cap fits so to speak.

Er...no.

See a post above. Separate limited companies (as you would expect).

For all the rubbishing of Wakey fans saying that the HMRC were testing the water with Wakefield, here we are with another club a couple of weeks later, and runours from more than one source that a club very close to Wakefield will get a similar demand very shortly (the importance of that one being, of course, that any money spent appeasing the taxman cannot go towards turning the outline planning permission into full permission, and it has been said that their outline permission expires on 23rd November).