Petition to Wind up for Toronto

[Tonka]

Hmm, yeah I tend to go off what I actually know/can evidence.  I guess I'm trained that way now...

[Bearman]

4 hours ago, Tonka said:

Lawyer here.

The full detail is not in the article.  But it sounds to me as if the law firm has not been paid and has either served a statutory demand for payment (which has not been satisfied after 21 days) then filed a winding up petition or has gone straight to filing a winding up petition.  You can do this if a company owes you £750 or more.  This is very common debt recovery route for creditors.  They do it either (i) because they are better off winding the company up and getting pennies in the pound or (ii) it often forces the debtor to pay to preserve the company.

From the Wolfpack's perspective, a few things could be going on (i) they might dispute the debt e.g. the law firm has charged more than they were expecting, and they may contest the winding up in Court.  The detail is not there in the article (ii) they could be quite happy to let the UK co be wound up (although it's a bit cynical and I don't really approve morally) or (iii) they might be slow at paying debts for cash flow reasons and leave this right to the last minute and maybe even cut a deal (there is risk and legal fees in this for the lawyer too).

Which should hopefully make clear that it is very difficult to draw any inference from this about the state of the Wolfpacks Canadian company / group's financial health as a whole.

That's £68.40 please.

 

Whoa! We are treading on dangerous ground here. If we start having people who know what they are talking about, where will that leave people like me?.

The whole forum could disintigrate into facts and actualities.

[Tonka]

I know. Think of the impact across all social media...it’s bloody kryptonite!

[RP London]

30 minutes ago, Tonka said:

I know. Think of the impact across all social media...it’s bloody kryptonite!

screw the impact of Brexit vs staying in the EU.. if we just did this our productivity as a nation would sky rocket as people spent less time talking horlicks on twitter and forums! (I know I would be more productive!)

[phiggins]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure why TWP would pay legal fees of over £100k to defend Ryan Bailey. 

Not necessarily all for work on the Bailey case though. Could be various pieces of work they have done for them

[SteelersWheeler]

4 hours ago, Monkey Lover said:

They set up two companies in order to get around the Visa issue and then found out the companies need to be 3 years old to be able to do that.

Last year they got round it by Bradford registering the players who would need a visa and then loan them to Toronto (obviously this was not made public) however this year the RFL have closed that loop hole meaning Noble is now scratching around trying to get games played in Europe to avoid having effectively a Home Squad and an Away squad. 

Careful. You'll wake East Coast Tiger...... 

[TIWIT]

5 hours ago, Tonka said:

Hmm, yeah I tend to go off what I actually know/can evidence.  I guess I'm trained that way now...

So you're trained to deal with facts. Little need of that around here.

[TIWIT]

3 hours ago, Bearman said:

Whoa! We are treading on dangerous ground here. If we start having people who know what they are talking about, where will that leave people like me?.

The whole forum could disintigrate into facts and actualities.

HORRORS!!!

[Tonka]

23 minutes ago, TIWIT said:

So you're trained to deal with facts. Little need of that around here.

I know, it’s why I hardly ever post.  It’s like nailing jelly to the ceiling half the time... 

[TIWIT]

1 minute ago, Tonka said:

I know, it’s why I hardly ever post.  It’s like nailing jelly to the ceiling half the time... 

While trying to herd cats? I hear ya.

[Tonka]

8 minutes ago, TIWIT said:

While trying to herd cats? I hear ya.

I think the formula is: unfounded factual assertion + speculation + or - hearsay/anecdotal evidence x agenda ÷ grammatical errors = POST!

[RP London]

16 hours ago, Tonka said:

I know, it’s why I hardly ever post.  It’s like nailing jelly to the ceiling half the time... 

Well thats my Christmas Day afternoon sorted!!

[North but south]

23 hours ago, Tonka said:

I know, it’s why I hardly ever post.  It’s like nailing jelly to the ceiling half the time... 

I think mythbusters did something on that. That's my evening sorted, YouTube mythbusters looking for it

[TMF]

And the future for expansion is? When two countries legal systems collide, then the future doesn't look good. When a lawyer can argue it's legal here and another says, well, not here it isn't, blah, blah. You get my drift. And the RFL response.....?

[TheLegendOfTexEvans]

59 minutes ago, TMF said:

And the future for expansion is? When two countries legal systems collide, then the future doesn't look good. When a lawyer can argue it's legal here and another says, well, not here it isn't, blah, blah. You get my drift. And the RFL response.....?

I think that's a serious point.  Canada does not have them same level of transparency as the UK.

What happens if a club winds up a company in the UK, but has accounts elsewhere.

How is that fair for other clubs, could UK clubs say keep the main accounts in one country, but pay people out of the UK accounts.

For instance Salford were heavily criticised when they got a petition to wind up back in 2015 from a supplier.  Radio Manchester came down tough on the club, something I remember listening to the whole incident was very negative for supporters at the time.  A little unfair I thought at the time.  

You could argue this a similar situation.   That Salford operate under more scrutiny, than a club based outside the UK.      

I think its something that needs looking at.

Would be interested to know how Catalans operates.  Assume its all in france and no issues as its across the EU.

 

 

 

[Tonka]

As free commercial entities clubs are entitled to do what they please in any jurisdiction, provided it’s legal.

It is for governing bodies to draw up their own rules about what is acceptable in a sporting context, and clubs will always try and get around rules to benefit their own club.

[TMF]

22 hours ago, Tonka said:

As free commercial entities clubs are entitled to do what they please in any jurisdiction, provided it’s legal.

It is for governing bodies to draw up their own rules about what is acceptable in a sporting context, and clubs will always try and get around rules to benefit their own club.

That's the point. Globalisation means they can pick and choose whichever country suits their agenda. Do you not get that? Whats legal in Swaziland (pick any other country/nation/continent) might not be legal here. So if an expansion club, after giving promises to the RL, goes t...s up, whose to pick up the pieces? 

[Kayakman]

5 hours ago, TMF said:

 So if an expansion club, after giving promises to the RL, goes t...s up, whose to pick up the pieces? 

Don't worry about things that are never going to happen.  My God, you people over there have got to become proactive and quit fearing change or worrying about pie in the sky ideas.

Toronto is here to stay...you are just going to have to accept that and not be afraid anymore...we will take care of it.

[Tonka]

15 hours ago, TMF said:

That's the point. Globalisation means they can pick and choose whichever country suits their agenda. Do you not get that? Whats legal in Swaziland (pick any other country/nation/continent) might not be legal here. So if an expansion club, after giving promises to the RL, goes t...s up, whose to pick up the pieces? 

Of course I get that.  But it's up to the RFL to have its own rules that prevent that cherry-picking.  It's an ever evolving game of cat and mouse, which is always the issue any form of regulatory body (sporting or otherwise) has.

If someone has given "promises" to the RFL, they may be culpable - again up to the RFL.  (Not sure what you mean by "promises"  though and what the legal effect of this is supposed to be).

I also don't know what you mean by "#### up" and "picking up the pieces" - that's too vague I'm afraid.

The "pieces" in question here would be a law firm not being paid everything (it says) it is owed.  Who are you saying should pick this bill up?