All I will say is that these ccj s make us look very poor and clearly in need of some more investment.

More like better financial management, even poor (financially) businesses can easily avoid CCJ'S

Even a speculative business plan written on the back of a fag packet would pass the RFL scrutiny though, it did last time, just ask Bradford. RFL believed theirs even though they were already loaning them money. They'd be hard pushed to exclude anyone on the basis of putting in an unsound or speculative business plan.

That was Bradford. We don't have the same iconic status as Bradford. It's a totally different set of circumstances.

Erm what was the reason the Crusaders were advised to withdraw their application?

So what is the detail of this, where can it be viewed?

The RFL have been embarrassed by the bad publicity regarding clubs financial state in recent times, they are set to take a much harder line next time around. We have to get it right.

Exact details cannot be viewed by the public, only by the parties concerned. The point I was making is that once Judgement has been entered it's a done deal, You have an opportunity to contest or counter claim prior to judgement. Judgement can be issued on two basis, 1) By default ie. the Defendant fails to contest or respond. or 2) The Judge finds in favour of the Claimant.

So we have either not responded or have no case of defence, doesn't matter on anyones elses point of view Judgement has been made. In some cases Judgement can be repealed and a correction put on file, but this does not happen very often and very good cause has to be shown.

hth

Catering company from last season (same company used by Cas Tigers 2013) owed 12K by WTW.

I'm no expert on CCJ's but if I understand things correctly the Club owed the catering company £12,000 and refused or would not pay because they disputed the figure. I know that the Club were in dispute with the company over bad service provided and I experienced the bad service myself. Agreement was not reached on a settlement so the company seeks a CCJ through the On-Line Court in Northampton. The Court looks at the information provided by both parties and comes up with a judgement in favour of the comany in the sum of £4,231.00.

If thats how it works then the Club have achieved a result of sorts by not paying the £12,000 and therefore saving £7,769. Looks like sensible business on the Club's part rather than being in financial trouble. When they pay the £4,231 I understand that the CCJ is then removed.

Andrew Glover owns the Club and I suggest that we let him run it how he sees fit rather than going looking for problems.

That would make a lot of sense and I hope it is that rather than the first sign of money problems.

This makes sense, but it's a little concerning that they won't make a statement to that effect, or at least one to reassure that there's nothing to worry about.

This exactly.
I trust Glover a million times more than the last regime, the man knows what he's doing. If the club is getting ripped off I'd do exactly the same, why hand out money that's not warranted ? CCJ..... SchmeeCJ !!

But on a lighter side, if Tesco were doing the same regarding paying companies they owe would you expect them to make statements ?