I would also add that if Ted's claim against the Solicitors who advised him on the Sainsbury's deal was a goer, I would have expected their insurers to cough up by now. They would not want to incur interest and additional costs in dragging the matter on, unless they believed there was a good defence to the claim.

Possibly unrelated to this discussion I know, but perhaps more evidence that what was portrayed as the case in that instance, may not have been entirely true, and why it is hard to believe anything Ted says.

His silence re the share offer questions speaks volumes - the club is desperate for the cash and he can't give the answers people want before they will consider giving their cash. If there was nothing to hide, why not just provide all the answers?

Totally agree, but the answers on this will never come from the club.

There's bits we can try to piece together from various resources (which is something I will be doing a bit of digging on tomorrow) but the only way we can realistically expect to get an unbiased opinion is for the truth to come out from any Administrator that is appointed.

Unfortuantely, this just means he would be increasing his fees and that is the very first thing that they consider how much they should dig into the club's dealings - will the ultimate outcome justify the potential costs of investigating?

Danny Lockwood?

RDM it does not take a genius to do some simple maths. Say last year we had a net turnover around the £2mill mark including Sky monies. The payroll including club employees and players would have amounted to no more than £1.5 mill (plus we received plenty of grants as well).

Then why have we run up a 350k trading debt plus the 160k that Sir Rodney loaned the club.

I'm not sure that any insurance company would pay out because the other party to a contract simply didn't want to pay what had been agreed. Don't forget, Sainsbury's DID pay Ted - albeit only 10% of what was due under the contract. BUT to get to the stage where money was paid, Ted would have had to agree to the original contract being waived & again, the solicitor's insurer wouldn't be paying out for that.

Wow. Watch a bit of telly and come back to this.

I've asked the question "Who owns Belle Vue" and not got an answer, now I know why.

On behalf of the Working Party establishing the Supporters Trust we will continue to seek an answer and try to establish the truth and let Supporters know if we find anything out.

It is nothing of the sort - never has been!

Not at this time - I do not have the answers required, but as part of the Trust, I will be seeking answers.

You ought to stick to interfering with hedgehogs in the bushes of thornes park with your dad. You " I'd hate to see Wakefield get a new stadium obsessed freak"
TRINITY FOREVER

If it's fraudulent behaviour he is duty bound to forensically investigate. Also the links with Teds other companies which are presently subject of an IVA I would think a closer inspection would be inevitable.

I work in this very area. The Solicitors all have to carry professional indemnity insurance so that if their advice is negligent and causes their client a loss (or they steal from their clients), there is insurance to pay for any claim against the firm.

It is a fact that if the Solicitor was negligent, his PI insurer would pay out and they would do it as soon as possible to avoid incurring interest and legal fees.

The fact he accepted 10% from Sainsburys would be nothing to do with his action against his own Solicitors. His claim against his own Solicitors would be on the basis he had to accept 10% because they drew the contract up negligently meaning he lost a considerable amount of money.

The simple answer is I don't know without seeing the full accounts for 2008-2010 to establish what's happened where.

What I do know is that the majority of the grants were to various community schemes that have been created as individual legal entities. The reason for this is that most of the grants were only available to "Not For Profit" bodies. Although WTRLFC has failed to make a profit for the last few years it is still a "For Profit" entity in theory.

To clarify the HMRC position, the winding up petition filed in July 2010 was cleared off by what SRW loaned the club. It's common practice for companies operating under a winding up order not to pay the further money due to the creditor that's seeking the order (in our case HMRC) until it is decided upon. At the same time as SRW's money paid off the original debt, an agreeement was put in place to clear the "new" HMRC debt that had accrued. Crusaders went bust within a couple of weeks of this agreement being put in place & HMRC decided that they wanted all the money we owed them.

The new winding up notice was served on the club at the beginning of December and the court date of 2 Feb was set last week.

The accounts for the year ending Decemebr 2010 don't have to be filed at Companies House until the end of September this year - assuming the current company is still around by then!!!

I think you'll find he's helping us get a stadium in his own way?!

There's a huge difference between drawing up a contract negligently & drawing up a contract that is acceptable to both parties. I expect that Sainsbury's would have required the wording to include sufficient room for manouvere if they changed their mind at a later date.

The solicitors who are more likely to have acted "negligently" are those who advised the bank that Ted secured a loan with using the contract as security & to whom he owed the debt that led to his IVA.