If the club is wound up then the tax man won't take the money all creditor rank equally.

I'm not sure the club has any real assets, if the Order is made they all lose out.

I'm sorry, but if the club owes players money under the terms of their contracts then they should be paid. Surely there can be no disagreement on that fact.

This unfortunate period in the history of our club seems to be dragging on far too long for me. I hope the club plans to get tomorrow's Winding Up Petition out of the way so it can then announce new funding and put all this stuff behind us. Here's hoping!

Can you honestly say they earned their money.
Apart from a few games and I mean a few they actually did actually put in a full shift.
If I performed as they did at work I would have been sacked.

You have a point, but I don't see them as any worse than many others we've had over the years - but then that's a whole other thread!!!

I really hope that this investment and new ownership and management happens and we can put all this behind us and have a genuine new start.

Has Simms been paid.

Could these players be taking a big financial risk with reports of new investment imminent? Could this turn out to be a classic example of cutting your nose off to spite your face? I question if these players would have been better advised to delay their actions until new investment talks are finally concluded.

I pretty sure that any new investors will want (and be doing their calculations on) Superleague rugby and the only way this will happen is if the club honours its creditors. If the club are forced out of business now it is likely these players will be kissing their golden handshakes goodbye, as new investors are likely to just walk away without a dangaling SL carrot.

The winding up petition hearing has been adjourned. I hope this is because new ownership and new investment are imminent. www.salfordonline.com/sport_page ... r_day.html

The winding up petition hearing has been adjourned. I hope this is because new ownership and new investment are imminent. www.salfordonline.com/sport_page ... r_day.html

Attended the hearing along with Walshovski. Was one other Salford fan there and a female journo, assumed to be from the MEN. Made a few scribbles as the hearing went along:

The petition from SG has now been withdrawn. The only squabble with SG/Salford now seems to be over costs which are still live. Impression seems to be that Salford are going to try and get them back later on in the proceedings. S.G. served a schedule for costs, but it was unsigned and non-serviceable apparently.

Patten and Anderson have now been substituted onto the petition, however. None of the costs were mentioned out loud and we couldn't get close enough to the emails being passed around. The barrister for Salford, a Miss Darcy, tried to get Patten and Anderson fobbed off on a technicality, due to not putting in their notice on a certain form in compliance with some rule (rule 4.9, if I remember rightly...) but the judge wasn’t having any of it, there’s no stipulation that the form is required, apparently. Would’ve just meant the players could bring their own petition against the club, but good old Miss Darcy did a sterling job on that front. There was a couple of other minor technicalities, Anderson’s home address not being on the notice, for instance, but the judge thought it daft to block it on those grounds.

Patten goes on now as the main name on the petition as he’s owed more, I assume Anderson will be on as a secondary name.

The whole HMRC issue seems to still be hanging around, however, with no real mention of it other than stating that they wished to join the petition but had no representation there this morning. Seemed very, very strange, but who knows what’s going on there. Seems they won't be on it as things stand.

Petition now to be amended, re-served and re-advertised. Next hearing is on the 7th of January. And my final scribble just says “costs reserved.”

Didn`t realize anybody could attend this hearing as I would have turned out in support.Still dont understand the outcome , but hey ho it seems to be good news.Wonder why HMRC arent pushing for money if they are owed ? Patten cant surely be owed a fortune,can he ? I see on twitter this morning that he is now unemployed !

From the Sky News site

"....Patten, who retired at the end of the season and has returned to Australia, and Anderson are each thought to be owed around £40,000, while HMRC are thought to be seeking more than £50,000 in unpaid tax....."

To be honest, it's just as well there wasn't many turned up. Only a small room, a fair few turning up might not have gone down too well! Was mainly all procedural stuff anyhow, a lot of it went over my head.

I dont get it. How can Patten be owed £40,000.He will surely have been on a lot more than Anderson,so why are they both supposed to be owed around the same amount Why have the other players been paid and not them, or are we going to get a raft of players joining the petition ?There must be some sort of disagreement with the club for them to have withheld so much money.

I think they will be pushing but also mindful that Salford Reds not existing in their present form could cost them considerably more in lost revenue going forward.

My guess is many professional sports clubs will be behind with HMRC payments and its standard procedure for them to get involved when anybody brings a petition against any business that are behind with them. The fact they did not send any representation would suggest its not an enormous amount or considered a priority for them.



I could be wrong on this but aren’t overseas players paid a basic monthly salary and then a lump sum payment at the end of their contracts?

According to the report on sky text Patten and Anderson are owed back pay from a salary sacrifice arrangement they entered into.