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.

Part of a naughty scheme which was found out by the HMRC a few years back..

No I think you may be getting confused with royalty payments that other clubs were guilty of making to players to avoid tax.

Did Ms Darcy not use any good business-speak ?
I have been trying to recall a word used when a soccer club went a bit wrong,but my memory is shot.
Amortisation may not be relevant to this particular matter but may be to investors.
When it comes to business my ignorance is bliss.
Well done for attending and thanks for the update.

The official club statement acknowledges the players adding to the WUP but also says the payments aren't due until the end on November. If this is the case how can they be added to the petition? I've not really got a clue about these things but common sense says to me that if the payments aren't due until end of November and it is currently only the end of October then there isn't a problem is there?

Good to see the club getting statements out in a timely fashion - I wonder if the usual detractors will give the club any credit for doing just what they've been demanding?

To answer Ledge787, anyone can "say" they are owed money, that's the purpose of the court hearing - if they've added themselves to the petition and it's subsequently found that they are in the wrong then the costs of the club defending themselves could be awarded against the petitioners I believe.

Am I reading this right? Patten and Anderson supported the WUP petition that could have put the club out of business this morning and their former teammates and colleagues out of work for contractual payments that are not due to them until the end of November.

HMRC don't tend to get involved if they payment plans are maintained. They will monitor the situation.

4.9 relates to service and notice of a petition I think.

This probably explains alot of Pattens moaning if he deferred wages. I wonder how much he earned if he is owed 40,000. (too much for what we got)

With both players being out of contract, how can the money owed to them be due in November?