Re: Swinton points deduction? : Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:27 pm  

With the matter going before the court Swinton off-loaded a head coach and a half-back. When Bradford were going before the court(s) they still managed to recruit a head coach and a half back from Australia. No special measures or a registration embargo was placed on the club - despite repeat performances under different owners. A3:2

With the matter going before the court Swinton off-loaded a head coach and a half-back. When Bradford were going before the court(s) they still managed to recruit a head coach and a half back from Australia. No special measures or a registration embargo was placed on the club - despite repeat performances under different owners. A3:2

Re: Swinton points deduction? : Wed Aug 02, 2017 1:58 pm  

Angelic Cynic wrote: With the matter going before the court Swinton off-loaded a head coach and a half-back. When Bradford were going before the court(s) they still managed to recruit a head coach and a half back from Australia. No special measures or a registration embargo was placed on the club - despite repeat performances under different owners. A3:2 As you have repeated on countless occasions you not getting tired of it yet?

Angelic Cynic wrote: With the matter going before the court Swinton off-loaded a head coach and a half-back. When Bradford were going before the court(s) they still managed to recruit a head coach and a half back from Australia. No special measures or a registration embargo was placed on the club - despite repeat performances under different owners. A3:2 As you have repeated on countless occasions you not getting tired of it yet?

Re: Swinton points deduction? : Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:37 am  

Nothus wrote:

Obviously without access to the accounting records all anyone can do is guess.
So at a guess, I'd say the HMRC winding up petitions were down to unpaid PAYE liabilities, which would explain their regular occurrence. Maybe some VAT too but I'm not sure.
We do know that they were dismissed though, not deferred, so it's largely irrelevant.

As for the balance sheet, again we can only guess. What could be in intangibles? Licences, costs associated with the website, trademarks, maybe even some goodwill?
I don't really think it matters though. Even if they weren't there and the company had negative reserves, it could still continue to trade without any issues.
I work with plenty of companies in such a position, assurances from directors or other sources will keep the company as a going concern. They can't pay any dividends out but that's not really on Swinton's agenda anyway I wouldn't have thought.

Yes, PAYE was my assumption so I am glad to have someone, with the appropriate technical knowledge and experience, that agrees. Looking at the dates of the first four, all within a day or two of the due date (22nd of the following month for the non-accountants here) it seems to me that they were to ensure that the arrears never got to two months, only one, hence that pattern. The two recent ones however have different timing.

I just do not see anything remotely worth £100K, the website should have cost not a lot and what licences intellectual property trade mark brand or other software could they have developed. Swinton Lions PS4 rugby league team management game would start to tick the boxes, though who would buy that (Bulls fans maybe!)

And yes, if someone, who clearly does not want to be identified, wants to guarantee payment then that is fine, that is what it looked like to me hence my reference to technically insolvent. But clearly someone prepared to put a bit in whilst the dream was still alive, but once reality and the amount spiralled, clearly they did not want to know/could not cover it, prompting the sale, appeal to fans (bless them) and yes, unidentified parties.

FA's contribution, thanks FA, is to point out that the RFL must have known all along about this, but cannot pin point what the definition of insolvency event is.

So in the Articles of Association, right down at the bottom, it says that an Insolvency Event includes (4.10.2.a.ii) "If any petition is presented... for the winding up of the company". This is entirely logical, as an unsatisfied Statutory Demand would almost certainly be required as evidence to support the petition, and an unsatisfied Stat Demand is in the Insolvencies Act as An Insolvency Event, not the Winding Up Petition.

So we are approaching my question again, which I will re-state a bit fuller based on the various contributions: on the face of it, Swinton should have been deducted 6 times 6 points = 36, from August 2016 onwards. So those appear to be the facts, now for the question: why have they not been deducted any points, what are we missing?

The RFL usually ensure there is flexibility in the rules for them to decide what they want to do, in this case there does not appear to be any such flexibility with insolvency event so the RFL cannot be behind it. So why were these not insolvency events?

Pop up cynic, we sold players BEFORE any winding up petition when there were players worth selling, not AFTER five winding up petitions. I suggest you become a full time cynic, like most RAB members, not the pathetic amateurish cynic you aspire - but fail - to be. You can do my online training course, capitalised as an intangible asset at £1,000,000.

Re: Swinton points deduction? : Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:25 am  

I'm assuming Swinton's worries are behind them completely now because they announced two new signings last night....transfer deadline, what's that?

Re: Swinton points deduction? : Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:25 am  

Nothus wrote:

I'm assuming Swinton's worries are behind them completely now because they announced two new signings last night....transfer deadline, what's that?

Actually they announced five new signings. Only one of which was a loan deal.

Re: Swinton points deduction? : Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:52 am  

martinwildbull wrote:

Yes, PAYE was my assumption so I am glad to have someone, with the appropriate technical knowledge and experience, that agrees. Looking at the dates of the first four, all within a day or two of the due date (22nd of the following month for the non-accountants here) it seems to me that they were to ensure that the arrears never got to two months, only one, hence that pattern. The two recent ones however have different timing.

I just do not see anything remotely worth £100K, the website should have cost not a lot and what licences intellectual property trade mark brand or other software could they have developed. Swinton Lions PS4 rugby league team management game would start to tick the boxes, though who would buy that (Bulls fans maybe!)

And yes, if someone, who clearly does not want to be identified, wants to guarantee payment then that is fine, that is what it looked like to me hence my reference to technically insolvent. But clearly someone prepared to put a bit in whilst the dream was still alive, but once reality and the amount spiralled, clearly they did not want to know/could not cover it, prompting the sale, appeal to fans (bless them) and yes, unidentified parties.

FA's contribution, thanks FA, is to point out that the RFL must have known all along about this, but cannot pin point what the definition of insolvency event is.

So in the Articles of Association, right down at the bottom, it says that an Insolvency Event includes (4.10.2.a.ii) "If any petition is presented... for the winding up of the company". This is entirely logical, as an unsatisfied Statutory Demand would almost certainly be required as evidence to support the petition, and an unsatisfied Stat Demand is in the Insolvencies Act as An Insolvency Event, not the Winding Up Petition.

So we are approaching my question again, which I will re-state a bit fuller based on the various contributions: on the face of it, Swinton should have been deducted 6 times 6 points = 36, from August 2016 onwards. So those appear to be the facts, now for the question: why have they not been deducted any points, what are we missing?

The RFL usually ensure there is flexibility in the rules for them to decide what they want to do, in this case there does not appear to be any such flexibility with insolvency event so the RFL cannot be behind it. So why were these not insolvency events?

Pop up cynic, we sold players BEFORE any winding up petition when there were players worth selling, not AFTER five winding up petitions. I suggest you become a full time cynic, like most RAB members, not the pathetic amateurish cynic you aspire - but fail - to be. You can do my online training course, capitalised as an intangible asset at £1,000,000.

Does it all really matter? Just another RL club dying a slow painful death.... sound familiar??

How many times did us Bulls appear in the Gazette with WUP's in the last few years???? A few if I recall... does that mean we should have additional points taken off? As the 12 this time was for the second administration we had entered, even though it ended in a sort of liquidified mess that rumbles on and will into next year......

Re: Swinton points deduction? : Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:51 am  

The RFL's problem is that IIRC recently at one point there was a literal queue of winding up petitions against a number of clubs, so maybe ignoring everything is less messy than starting the next season with every fecker on minus 6?

Re: Swinton points deduction? : Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:45 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

Yes, PAYE was my assumption so I am glad to have someone, with the appropriate technical knowledge and experience, that agrees. Looking at the dates of the first four, all within a day or two of the due date (22nd of the following month for the non-accountants here) it seems to me that they were to ensure that the arrears never got to two months, only one, hence that pattern. The two recent ones however have different timing.

I just do not see anything remotely worth £100K, the website should have cost not a lot and what licences intellectual property trade mark brand or other software could they have developed. Swinton Lions PS4 rugby league team management game would start to tick the boxes, though who would buy that (Bulls fans maybe!)

And yes, if someone, who clearly does not want to be identified, wants to guarantee payment then that is fine, that is what it looked like to me hence my reference to technically insolvent. But clearly someone prepared to put a bit in whilst the dream was still alive, but once reality and the amount spiralled, clearly they did not want to know/could not cover it, prompting the sale, appeal to fans (bless them) and yes, unidentified parties.

FA's contribution, thanks FA, is to point out that the RFL must have known all along about this, but cannot pin point what the definition of insolvency event is.

So in the Articles of Association, right down at the bottom, it says that an Insolvency Event includes (4.10.2.a.ii) "If any petition is presented... for the winding up of the company". This is entirely logical, as an unsatisfied Statutory Demand would almost certainly be required as evidence to support the petition, and an unsatisfied Stat Demand is in the Insolvencies Act as An Insolvency Event, not the Winding Up Petition.

So we are approaching my question again, which I will re-state a bit fuller based on the various contributions: on the face of it, Swinton should have been deducted 6 times 6 points = 36, from August 2016 onwards. So those appear to be the facts, now for the question: why have they not been deducted any points, what are we missing?

The RFL usually ensure there is flexibility in the rules for them to decide what they want to do, in this case there does not appear to be any such flexibility with insolvency event so the RFL cannot be behind it. So why were these not insolvency events?

Pop up cynic, we sold players BEFORE any winding up petition when there were players worth selling, not AFTER five winding up petitions. I suggest you become a full time cynic, like most RAB members, not the pathetic amateurish cynic you aspire - but fail - to be. You can do my online training course, capitalised as an intangible asset at £1,000,000.

FWIW my understanding is that a petition is only presented when the hearing takes place, before that it is lodged pending that hearing. As all of the petitions were withdrawn before any hearing did take place then said petitions were not presented. Hence no points deduction would be initiated.

I find this speculation, including my own, to be a sad reflection on our attitudes towards the sport and clubs that we love.

Re: Swinton points deduction? : Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:01 pm  

Insolvency is the inability to pay a debt or debts. The Insolvency Act essentially defines this as the inability to satisfy a statutory demand, a reasonable step so that frivolous petitions are not presented. A winding up petition can only be presented if the company is unable to pay its debts, in other words the insolvency event has already happened. HMRC follow the rules. They will normally have presented a statutory demand before issuing the winding up petition. This is acknowledged in the RFL rules of association as it includes "if any demand under section 123 of the insolvency act 1986 is served..." So as mentioned in my previous post, service of a statutory demand is sufficient, the insolvency event having already happened. Unless HMRC have not been issuing stat demands before WU petitions.

As nobody had come up with, for example a hidden section in the RFL constitution that states the RFL can do what it pleases in defining insolvency event irrespective of the sections I have quoted, and as noted before this is usually explicitly stated rather than hidden, the next thing to do is to write to the RFL and ask for clarification.