no way in hell, i do not fancy the thought of paying ben cockayne

Agreed. I wouldnt want him anywhere near a Trinity shirt!

stranger things have happened.

how's about this for a conspiracy theory: john kear to take the hkr job next year, and to sign cockayne for wakefield to sweeten the deal.

fat faced fan could be correct and he may know something we don't. You all seem quick to jump to conclusions that My Cockayne is comming to Belle Vue, open your minds, what is the other possibility ?

That he isn't signing for us?

I can't see why not, that's simply bizarre IMHO. If a director calls in his loan and it's not paid he will apply to have the company wound up the same way a bank or anyone else would. The only difference is he wouldn't be a preferred creditor like the HMRC and Banks are.
In fact as far as I'm aware and TRB may be able to confirm this, the RFL do not like Directors loans and prefer clubs not to have them,

That's not right IMO, they very much are proper loans especially if they are called in - many clubs in the past have been taken down that way.

The only thing that makes them different is that most Directors wouldn't call them in for fear of getting so little back on them. However if the Directors loans are secured against the ground say, then you could be in trouble as a disgruntled or skint director could get his cash back.

What if parts of the ground were temporary and could be dismantled and sold as an asset in order to meet the demands of a Directors loan having been called in?

Are you talking us or HKR? Applies to both I suppose. Directors loans are messy, but when they make up allegedly 80% of the loans that really messy.

Imagine if one of those Directors went bust, his creditors I believe would be in a position to call that loan as an asset? In which case they could take temporary stand or the car park for all I know. It's a nightmare scenario if you are a HKR fan or any fan.

i've not heard anything about cockayne coming our way, i was just being open minded to the fact that an established superleague player may well be on the market and we're not exactly in a position to turn cheap established players away without some deep thought.

You don't have to defend it in court - in employment matters, you just have to reach a reasonable belief and act accordingly, within your own policies and procedures.

As someone with an extant warning, Mr Cockayne is eminently sackable.

they may have to defend it in an employment tribunal. we don’t know the facts just yet. let’s wait and see.

regardless of this, somebody will take him for next season even if hkr get rid or don’t renew at the end of the season.

we signed tevita leo-latu afterall.

Indeed - it's a bit depressing isn't it?

They are considered debt,but they are likely to be subordinated loans.If subordinated they are unsecure.The provider of the subordinated loan cant just call it in -- the loan agreement would have to have been broken.
It is still classed as debt,but its fair to say that its not classed as "proper debt"

I agree and as I said they are unlikely to be called but to dismiss them as not proper debt as the two posters did is wrong. They could be lethal in certain scenarios. IMHO they would be better off without them, certainly not such a high percentage as it does leave them very exposed especially in the current climate where many apparently wealthy individuals are going under. I mean that's pretty much how we lost control of BV.