There could be another Hetherington in West Yorkshire

Whilst a lot of people say “no news is good news” I am starting to wonder why there is still utter silence coming out of the club. There has been plenty of time for the club to formulate their plans and get something out to the media and fans, a lack of comments from a member of the board in the last game day magazine was a bit poor in my mind. I feel as if the fans are being treated like mushrooms. (Kept in the dark ad feed bull”%^T)

Come on Bradford lets have some NEWS

Hopefully we'll get some news sooner rather than later. I've read plenty of rumours that players and staff have been told they're safe but no actual confirmation. Until it's officially confirmed we'll all have our doubts. It surely can't be long now can it?

I'm sure that we'll hear plenty from the club when season ticket renewals are due.

If its any help

Just past Odsal

Morrison van parked in entrance

Seabrook crisps packet blowing down road

Big black merc with dodgy looking chap in back oppersit

Truck with tipping service parked on waste land

UPS truck delivering cash



Don't know whats going on now

If I were a Bulls fan I'd be worried about the news about Rangers today. It's a sign that HMRC (if they're one of the creditors) are not going to accept CVAs (administration) from sports clubs, having had their fingers burnt after the Portsmouth situation. Instead they're forcing CVLs (liquidation) and back-investigation of directors. Details here [urlhttp://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-taxman-walk/1899[/url.

Didnt rangers owe something like £70million though, same for most football clubs who owe money they dont owe abit they owe tens of millions

As we are not in administration - why?



Second, HMRC has always tended to vote against such proposals as a matter pretty much of policy, and the issue is usually whether they have the casting vote or not.



It's difficult if not impossible to see what parallels you could draw between the Bulls situation, and the shenanigans at Rangers. In fact the HMRC commented that "...its general policy of not agreeing to a CVA where there is strong evidence of non-compliance by a company with its tax liabilities". (Rangers owe them well over £20m). I hope you're not suggesting there is such evidence at Odsal? If so I'd be very careful what you write.

Why should we be? We are not proposing any form of insolvency as it stands, to my knowledge?



And anyway, a CVA is NOT Administration. It is a Company Voluntary Arrangement. A voluntary composition with creditors. Administration is a procedure whereby the High Court grants an order for protection from creditors where there is realistic chance of the business being saved as a going concern.



In practice, for the legal entity concerned, the end result is usually the same -Creditors' Voluntary (oxymoron alert...!) Liquidation, after the assets have been acquired by Newco or whoever. The difference is that an administrator is charged with trying to save the business if possible. A liquidator's job is simply to liquidate the assets on behalf of the creditors.



But don't worry, there remain people on here who think Administration is the solution to our problems, and deride anyone who seeks to emphasise the risks of any form of insolvency. I believe...or at least I hope, that the current board are extremely alive to the risks, and are therefore being honest when they assert they are desperate to avoid administration. They will surely know the current stance of HMRC (and it predates Rangers) as well as anyone.

I wasn't suggesting that.



I was taking "non-compliance by a company with its tax liabilities" to mean plain-and-simple inability to pay at the time of and just before administration/liquidation, and the HMRC using the opportunity to look at what can be clawed back for the exchequer. They got nothing back from Portsmouth under CVA and would be hoping to get more from Rangers and their directors under CVL.



I appreciate the sums involved are of different magnitudes, but HMRC have put a lot into the Rangers case as precedent.



I raised it as a genuine enquiry because from scanning this board, it appears a lot of Bradford fans take administration as a given, even desirable, outcome and part of the grand Caisley plan. Adeybull says different, and if that's the case then there's obviously no parallel with Rangers except in hypotheticals.

Adeybull HOPES different. Since as I keep saying Administration is likely to solve little financially.

I thought they meant something more blatant than that, such as not paying the PAYE/VAT whilst still buying players?