Well as a taxpayer I have to be happy that HMRC are serious about collecting our money from whom so ever. Obviously I would prefer them to get it right first time rather than wasting our money correcting their own foul ups.
But I am starting to worry about the amount we, as tax payers, are spending on (not usually cheap) lawyers in what seems to be an increasing amount of brinkmanship played out in court. Presumeably the various sports clubs/businesses are also incurring costs in defending these actions and again that will have an impact on their ability to pay.
It could be that HMRC push this case through and get a result only to be told that they get nowt at the end of the day because some lawyer has just taken the money that was left for defending the case he just lost.
Whatever the rights of the case it seems to me that the only way HMRC are going to get anything out of Wakefield Trinity is if the business gets to take its share from SKY next year and that won't happen in adminstration.
We, as tax payers, might soon be witnessing HMRC trumpetting its victory over the folding Wildcats with no mention of any money recovered and only the lawyers getting well on the experience.
If Wakefield's directors have fouled up the business then so be it but I do get the feeling that our supposedly skint government is spending too much of what little we have on posturing and lawyers.
Does it need a useless lawyer to serve a winding up order - I doubt it? Some enforcing authorities are capable of prosecuting their own cases from start to finish albeit through a barrister - cheaper than useless lawyers - on the day, if it gets that far which so many cases don't - as you say brinksmanship.
I was trying to find on the web a report about Wakefield actually having sold their ground Belle Vue, and could not find one. Is it the case they have sold the ground to the developers?? It was posted on here.
In 1973 Hunslet sold Parkside to Lenton Properties of Huddersfield at a time when they had published plans to build a new ground on Middleton Road close to their original home, so Wakefield's situation brings back many vivid memories. The new ground never happened and the club folded and I can recall Leeds offering their A team to replace Hunslet, and I can recall planning to become a Bradford Northern fan.
I'm perplexed about the argument over how much is owed. Most business tax affairs are straightforward - you just apply the rates of tax and NI to whatever part of the turnover or profit you are paying tax on. It's just accountancy. If there's confusion it indicates a lack of any monetary control and maybe the tax people have had to estimate the figure.
Anyway it may be everything is fine and as per the PR there is a genuine disagreement (although if Wakeys figure is below the HMRC figure they could just pay that and dispute the extra) but the simple logic is if they've sold Belle Vue pay something on account from the proceeds.........