If what I am led to believe is correct, if overdue tax liabilities are not settled within the next couple of weeks, HMRC is expected to petition the High Court for a winding-up order. That would immediately require the club's directors to apply to the High Court to appoint an administrator.
Leaving aside how those liabilities arose and came to be unpaid, how long this situation has existed for, why many fans clearly feel they were misled in January and everything else that has shocked and appalled most fans, if this indeed be the case then there seems to be two choices:
1 - Provide the club with cash - by whatever means - so it can settle the pressing liabilities and avoid administration.
2 - Allow the club to go into administration.
It would seem time is of the essence, if administration is to be avoided. I have to say that all this talk of new supporters foundations, trusts or whatever organising fundraising with the intent of securing a shareholding in the club, and thereby providing it with a capital injection, is IMO almost certainly misguided as a means of achieving 1. Do any of you guys considering it have any conception whatsoever of just what would be involved?
As one who does, I have to warn you that IMO you have far far too little time to form a new vehicle to achieve this. Far too little time. It took us months to bring Bullbuilder into being. Go ask Wakey about how long it took them to bring THEIR trust into being. They were trying to do it over the period when their club went belly-up, but they never had anything like the time.
Raising funds in a bucket is the relatively easy part. Anyone ever tried to open a new bank account recently? No bank will do it without there being a properly-constituted entity, with a valid constitution and appointed officers and heaven knows what else. And without a bank account, how can you collect the funds?
I'm not trying to dampen the enthusiasm of those who are looking at this route to solving the immediate cash flow crisis that we are assured exists. Just pleading with those enthusiasts to think it through carefully and understand what the timelines - and the massive time commitment by those who take it on - are likely to be.
Even trying to raise money for a shareholding using an in-situ vehicle (and Bullbuilder is the only one I am aware of that is already set up) would involve a great deal of time and work - as well as a lot more pairs of hands to share the workload, and be there for the long haul not just the sexy initial stage when you can be in the public eye. If the deadline is as pressing as the club says (and I have been assured that it is, for what that may or may not be worth) then I do not believe there is time for even an in-situ vehicle to achieve what is required.
If there was more time, then the situation could be very different.
We come anyway to a second issue. Basically, I would expect the club will likely do its level best to resist any attempt by supporters to acquire collectively a significant shareholding in the club. Why? Because that would immediately make the club a much less attractive proposition to any prospective majority investor. If you were seeking to take a majority stake in a RL club, would you be happy if part of the shares were held by a supporters' collective? Especially if that holding was more than a blocking 25%. And especially if you were considering investing at the present time. And yet a new investor is probably the only long-term solution to the club's situation. We really need a Pearson-type person, to step in and take over the business as a going concern.
And I say that as someone who supports the principle of supporter investment and at least partial-ownership of sports clubs. But as someone who has to reconcile himself to the likely financial realities of the current situation.
So how about the idea, widely promoted by visitors from outside and argued passionately by Maislebugs and others on here, of allowing the club to fold and go into administration? Time right now does not allow me to go into the pros and cons in detail, but it certainly IS an option that warrants careful consideration.
It would allow a new investor - if there is one - to take control and start with a clean sheet. We saw that at Wakey, although with respect to them it was a smaller and rather less complex operation and situation. That is potentially a big benefit, one that the proponents of the administration route are rightly flagging up.
And it would mean the club gets to screw the taxpayer big-time, same way as Wakey and Crusaders and London did, by not paying its debts. remember, we are talking monies that the club collected (or should have collected) from employees, customers and others that was never the club's money. Personally, I find the business of screwing the taxpayer morally repugnant, and have said so repeatedly in the past that in my book it is tantamount to theft, but what I feel counts for nothing in the wider scheme of things.
And what about all the other suppliers to the club? Many are small businesses. Maybe some of you guys work for one of them. Some of you guys ARE ones of them. You get to make your pledge regardless - by not getting paid, and maybe losing your job.
Another downside is that all contracts can get cancelled. For example, the lease with the RFL would be voided. One presumes the RFL would seek to enter into a new lease with whatever phoenix company arose with whom a new lease could be negotiated. But would those terms be as favourable as the present lease? Who knows. At least the head lease would likely not be affected, since that is between the council and the RFL now.
And, most seriously of all perhaps, the administrator would be inundated with offers for our young stars. Doubtless the salary caps of the monied clubs would become even more flexible to accommodate them. The administrator would be duty-bound to consider very seriously any offers received - and a player would anyway be a free agent. Look what happened to Wakey.
There are loads of other considerations, but those are just some quick ones, for and against.
If someone had put together a prepack administration, so that we would be in and out of administration within 24 hours and with the prior agreement of the RFL and the council and the new players' union and other
relevant stakeholders, then administration could well work. If the process dragged on, like Wakey's did, I fear the damage that would be done over that interim period could be irreversible.
Prepacks normally only happen when either the existing management or shareholders, or a party working closely with them, is the purchaser. Otherwise, the time scale involved is far too long. Can we see that happening in this case? I doubt it. And anyway, I can see the proponents of administration understandably and most definitely do NOT want to see the same faces involved.
And what of the prospects of reforming post-administration and playing in the lower leagues? Wouldn't be at Odsal - could not afford it. How many would rally want to watch a team where your very best player was probably well short in ability of those perceived as the worst on our books?
So we have a timescale and other factors that mitigate against a shareholding involvement, and a high-risk administration option that might be salvation or it might lead to oblivion. And then we have the club's own proposal, which is we all chuck a load of money in the bucket for them to use to pay off the taxman and others, and keep the club going, and maybe show to potential investors that the club is worth investing in because of the passion and commitment of its fans.
Short of winning Euromillions, or Ken Morrison shocking us all, those seem to be our alternatives.
Spoilt for choice, aren't we?
