Wont get past 100

Pretty much sums it up for me I'm afraid.

Very Optimistic there Mirfield.

i will not put any money in while ted richardson is associated with our club..i have watched wakefield trinity for over 30 years and can not believe the incompetence and total dis respect for the supporters of the club! why has it taken so long for this to come out? if it had been announced 4 months ago then people would have had a chance to save money etc but the "board" kept it quiet! last minute begging..LET THE BOARD QUIT AND MAYBE PEOPLE WOULD THEN PUT IN SOME MONEY!
ps..hope we are still alive for catalan because i have already booked!!!!

Spot on!

Going through the motions because if/when the administrators walk through the door, as the BOD probably know they will on the 1st Feb, then expect Ted to say that the BOD have been trying their best for the last few weeks to avoid this but in the end the fans let us down!!

The thing is now the BOD must realize that the chances of 500 people coming forward before the 31st are virtually nil. The meeting we are led to believe is to discuss the formation of a Supporters Trust.
So whatever is going to happen why can't it happen immediatlely, why have another 3 weeks of going through the motions before the medicine is administered.The patient is waiting for it.It will only make the recovery longer.
Come clean, tell the truth, there's very little chance of a reprieve. So why wait any longer ?

I think you might as well for all the good it will do true WFWC fans.

That is a fairly good point, as it will give us breathing space before the start of the season. But what if the HMRC agree an individual payment plan with the club. For example, the club can give the taxman a big grin and say that if you want the money, you're going to have to agree instalments, because if you force us into administration, you can swivel on this for your money (at which point Daddy Cool raises a big foam finger).

Yes but the Revenue may also take the view that the situation will be reacurring with the present incumbants and that they will forever be trading at a loss as they have not demonstrated otherwise, so then decide to force the issue.
Which if you look at the present this may have already happened and a payment plan will not be acceptable to them and refused.
But we are all in the dark arn't we

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?