Absolutely, that was my point.

That's the whole point isn't it. Wakefield without Smith will be woeful in attack. If he doesn't tick we don't. Simple as that. If he goes then, like people say we need a top class replacement - that will cost money -so what would be the point in allowing him to leave?

I am 100% sure Tim Smith will stay and all this about him leaving is total crap.

I also think we have a decent squad if we can keep our first 17 fit and healthy, however we don't have any depth and if its true we are trimming the playing budget by £200K then we are taking a massive gamble in such and important season.

If the 200K figure is true then Wilkes, Cockayne, Mariano, Cowling & Wildie should just about cover it. But then add Tusons' wages and anybody else that comes in then someone else/others will have to go. It will leave the squad looking very skinny and a recipe for disaster.

Unless what the chap who posted last week was true, and a group of investors are looking to take equal stakes in the club; that being the case, the money we owe the RFL will be repaid, without any need to reduce the playing budget - if they get their money back, I don't suppose they'll give two hoots how we spend what we do have.

Interesting times - again.

That's twice someone has posted we owe the RL money. That fact seems to have sneaked under the radar if true.
So are you also suggesting the RFL have reduced our SL money as part of the debt repayment terms ?

I'm not suggesting anything - I have no insight; I'm merely reflecting on what 'The Devil Within' posted last week; didn't he mention that?

Genuinely, I have no idea, but I can't see any other circumstances in which the RFL could demand we reduce our playing budget; what does it have to do with them?

Sorry ,I just can't see how the RL can dictate to us, unless they are keeping us on life support just to avoid further embarrassment.

I don't think so - worst case scenario, they're being very prescriptive about the HMRC debt, as they had their knuckles rapped over the 'image rights' fiasco a couple of years ago?

I wonder what's really going on ? Come on Daddycool let us know

Looks like one down, one to go. The HMRC petition is heard next monday.

[iDate

[iIn the Matter of SPIRIT OF 1873 LTD

(Company Number 07511179)

and in the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986

A Petition to wind up the above-named Company of Stoneygate House, 2 Greenfield Road, Holmfirth HD9 2JT, [/i[iwas presented on 5 June 2013 by Macron S.p.A, Via G, Brodolini 5, 40056 Crespellano, Bologna, Italy, was heard on 25 July 2013 and was dismissed by the Court.

Notice of the hearing previously appeared as notice number 1864814 in The London Gazette issue number 14060 on 16 July 2013.[/i

So can you explain to an idiot what the sentence," was heard on 25th July and dismissed by the court means?"
Has the claim been dismissed in full, or just the winding up order?

I would have thought it just cover the WUP but i might be wrong.

Thankfully no personal experience of insolvency but I would have thought that the Court dismissed the WUP because either the claim from Macron has since been resolved or it felt the claim was not valid in full and the Club had a case in not paying the claim.

Whichever it means that the Club is NOT being wound up.

HMRC may be different but I suspect that will have already been sorted with HMRC and that WUP will also be dismissed.

i have no doubt the club will get away with it "just" and that'll be great news.

Lots of questions as to why we are in this position "again" but for now its good news and welcome news at that.