Considering it is estimated that only 500 season tickets have been sold at a cost of approx £200, it should be obvious that if the fans are unwilling to commit to that figure which is after all a bargain taking into account what you get for your money. I doubt 500 supporters will come up with £1000 pounds considering there is no return at all for that investment.

If the club are having difficulties selling season tickets I would suggest they improve the web site, having been on the web site to look at this seasons season ticket prices, I can honestly say it is not user friendly.

Now that would almost be worth a grand to see.

10 actual investors is laughable but in all reality its a realistic figure for the way the club tried to actually get investors to sign up.

Sadly its the end, but I agree with a few on here, you know full well the blame will be shifted to the supporters way for not saving the club. Everything will be our fault etc...

We should all go down to Belle Vue on Feb 1st, bend over on the pitch so Ted could give us a spanking for not saving him.

I don't think that will be possible if the happenings at Batley are set in concrete.The chairman did continue some dialogue on the Widnes forum,but here is a link with his experience.
rlLINKrl

I suppose we are nearer to the Batley situation than Crusaders, in that the Welsh club were bogged down by a previous owner's debt, whereas with us, it's the same old same old.

But is an agreed repayment plan an indebtedness? Tax is owed by every club probably about twice a year. It's called a tax demand. So the RFL can't suspend all play until the newest tax demand is paid. And my knowledge of company law may be flawed, but I assume that if the HMRC force us to wind up, they'll never get the money.

Or does that depend on how we own Belle Vue; ie, do we still own half of Belle Vue (in which case, HMRC could put a charge on it, which would force repayment when Cala Homes complete the full sale), or do Cala Homes own all of it, with an agreement that we can use it, rent free, until such as time we get a new ground, or they want to complete the purchase, whichever is the latest? Because without Belle Vue, I would have thought that the HMRC would get nothing if they wind us up, and other than sending a message out, I can't see how that benefits them. As a taxpayer, I want the country to get that £350,000, not see it thrown away on "making a point."

You are likely on slightly the wrong tack there, mate.

Limited companies making a taxable profit have to pay corproration tax. I think you are getting mixed up with the 31/1 and 31/7 payments on account a self-employed person, or anyone not taxed under PAYE, has to make?

What all businesses DO have to do is to pay over tax and NIC deducted from employees, employers NIC, and VAT collected from customers less that paid to suppliers, on (usually) a monthly basis for PAYE and quarterly foe VAT.

You tend to find that most of the non-payment of "tax" issues with clubs tend to be where the club has deducted PAYE from employees or collected net VAT from customers - i.e. money that was never its own -and then not paid it when due. Or, indeed, for a long time afterwards.

That means the business has been using money that is not its own to finance the business.

I have always viewed using money not your own to pay your own bills as being theft, personally. Is it any wonder HMRC take the view they do? What would YOU do if, say, your employer paid your wages instead to one of its suppliers and told you it could not really be sure when it could pay you? Its not that different.

As for whether HMRC get any money on wind-up: in the old days, of "Crown Preference", HMRC stood ahead of the ordinary unsecured creditor for much of what they were owed - certainly for unpaid PAYE etc. This tended to let them take a bit more of a relaxed approach to unpaid PAYE etc. However, since the Enterprise Act 2002 abolished Crown Preference - and at the same time very much encouraged alternatives to Receivership or Liquidation to try and preserve businesses - HMRC stands with the rest of the unsecured creditors.

And they have been ripped off time and time again - look at the scandalous disgrace that was Harlequins, where pretty well all the unsecured creditors were paid and it was the owners and HMRC (i.e the taxpayer) left losing a shedload. So HMRC have understandably decided enough is enough, and have become far more proactive in pursuing sports clubs for unpaid PAYE VAT etc. They take the view that to get in first, and carrying a very big stick, is more likely to secure a recovery for the taxpayer.

Can you blame them?