Halifax skint

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

I think you'll find it goes back further than that, back into the eighties. I remember it becoming a requirement as it was the only time I saw our calm and reasonable secretary  (as the post was called in those days) seriously out of his tree - 'they talk about it for five years the give us five <multiple expletives deleted> weeks to bring it in'.

I think you'll find Gazza is correct.

Featherstone Rovers RLFC Ltd incorporated 27th February 1996.

[Neutralfan7]

13 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

When making appeals for money to save their clubs have any of these organisations ever issued a set of accounts to show their true position? Indeed do any RL clubs actually issue anything other than abbreviated accounts?

We all know the answer to this one I guess. In the murky sport of RL there is absolutely zero transparency from either clubs or the organisation itself, yet they are all too quick to set up appeals for the fans to bail them out. I wouldn't put a penny into any of these appeals unless I knew where it was going and the reason for the crisi.

A yes or no would of done

[Griff]

18 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

When making appeals for money to save their clubs have any of these organisations ever issued a set of accounts to show their true position? Indeed do any RL clubs actually publish anything other than abbreviated accounts?

We all know the answer to this one I guess. In the murky sport of RL there is absolutely zero transparency from either clubs or the organisation itself, yet they are all too quick to set up appeals for the fans to bail them out. I wouldn't put a penny into any of these appeals unless I knew where it was going and the reason for the crisis.

You're rarely going to get that level of detail from the public record.  You'll get a balance sheet and that will show the company's assets and liabilities which should be good enough to help you decide whether to offer them credit.  That's what it's designed to do.

The snag is that, even if the company is compliant, they have nine months to file and then they don't have to file again for a year, so the balance sheet is up to 21 months old.  So not as helpful as it might be.

You should be able to see a profit and loss account soon.   The legislation is in place but I can't remember the commencement date.

Nothing to stop clubs offering additional information to that required by law, though.  "We made a right pig's ear of running the club this year etc etc...."

[Blind side johnny]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

You're rarely going to get that level of detail from the public record.  You'll get a balance sheet and that will show the company's assets and liabilities which should be good enough to help you decide whether to offer them credit.  That's what it's designed to do.

The snag is that, even if the company is compliant, they have nine months to file and then they don't have to file again for a year, so the balance sheet is up to 21 months old.  So not as helpful as it might be.

You should be able to see a profit and loss account soon.   The legislation is in place but I can't remember the commencement date.

Nothing to stop clubs offering additional information to that required by law, though.  "We made a right pig's ear of running the club this year etc etc...."

That would be interesting and open up a whole can of worms for some clubs.

Yes I have looked at some balance sheets of RL clubs, none of which would tempt me to offer them credit. I do think that it is ridiculous for fans to make small, or even worse large, donations to a business without a smidgeon of information as to their viability.

[Griff]

32 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

That would be interesting and open up a whole can of worms for some clubs.

Yes I have looked at some balance sheets of RL clubs, none of which would tempt me to offer them credit. I do think that it is ridiculous for fans to make small, or even worse large, donations to a business without a smidgeon of information as to their viability.

I think the same about shares.  You pay your money in, and then (theoretically) have a right to receive, in perpetuity, copies of the accounts, go to AGMs, complain about the quality of matchday pies - you're just a burden to the club.  Just spend your money on matchday hospitality and have a good day out.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

3 hours ago, Griff said:

I think you'll find Gazza is correct.

Featherstone Rovers RLFC Ltd incorporated 27th February 1996.

Ah, multiple brain f**t by yours truly - I confused it with putting all players under proper contracts. Just ignore me, as you always do.

[Griff]

50 minutes ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

Ah, multiple brain f**t by yours truly - I confused it with putting all players under proper contracts. Just ignore me, as you always do.

Proper contracts - an innovation introduced by Sheffield Eagles in 1984.

[gazza77]

5 hours ago, Griff said:

I think you'll find Gazza is correct.

I always am, or at least that's what I tell my wife.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

3 hours ago, Griff said:

Proper contracts - an innovation introduced by Sheffield Eagles in 1984.

As did the more responsible clubs for the next few years. The irritation was compelling the little chook raffle clubs (as the Australians would term it - don't know if that term's still current) like us at Fulham to follow suit even after it was pointed out that a contract could be what a club could afford, it was just a question of putting things into a proper legal framework.

[sentoffagain2]

   For Championship and league 1 clubs going forward it may be better to offer a much smaller retainer(contract) and then go back to pre-conract days by offering a win sum and a much smaller amount if the team loses.At least then the players might not lie down in games like HullFC players have done this season.The supporters buy their memberships pay on game day but the players don't give a toss because they have their contract money no matter how hard they try.However i do think Championship players i have not seen any League 1 are more honest than SL players.We get less fannying about with players feigning head injuries than i have seen recently in SL games.

[Griff]

22 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

   For Championship and league 1 clubs going forward it may be better to offer a much smaller retainer(contract) and then go back to pre-conract days by offering a win sum and a much smaller amount if the team loses.At least then the players might not lie down in games like HullFC players have done this season.The supporters buy their memberships pay on game day but the players don't give a toss because they have their contract money no matter how hard they try.However i do think Championship players i have not seen any League 1 are more honest than SL players.We get less fannying about with players feigning head injuries than i have seen recently in SL games.

They can offer less but the players might not accept. And there's minimum pay legislation to consider, sick pay, paternity pay, 5.6 weeks holidays - it's a different world to the 1970s and 1980s.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

There's nothing to stop a contact involving a small retainer plus any appearance money and winning bonuses.

[The Blues Ox]

Yeah looking at some of the accounts it looks like Swinton's players are all self employed and probably sign retainers or similar to make it above board and get round minimum pay rules.

[Griff]

22 minutes ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

There's nothing to stop a contact involving a small retainer plus any appearance money and winning bonuses.

Of course not.

[Griff]

10 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Yeah looking at some of the accounts it looks like Swinton's players are all self employed and probably sign retainers or similar to make it above board and get round minimum pay rules.

Swinton's players are definitely not self employed.   Employment status isn't a choice and they are required to have an RFL contract which is one of employment.

[Just Browny]

Anyway I've paid my ticket money and will go down to the game today. Hopefully there will be a decent crowd because, even if the ship is doomed, the players (and frankly the taxpayer) deserve to be paid. A decent attendance might help them cling on until the Bulls game in a couple of weeks, which you'd assume could also pull an above-average crowd.

It's a good example of how poorly this has all been managed that they didn't even get their appeal for money out in time for it to appear in the local weekly paper.

 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

4 hours ago, Griff said:

Swinton's players are definitely not self employed.   Employment status isn't a choice and they are required to have an RFL contract which is one of employment.

So how does that fit with the Club having an average of only 6 employees (as stated in their submitted accounts) in the 2023 accounting period?

[LeeF]

48 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

So how does that fit with the Club having an average of only 6 employees (as stated in their submitted accounts) in the 2023 accounting period?

Reduced from 28 the year before. Something changed. 

[Just Browny]

Not exactly a mind-blowing crowd, 1647.

[Griff]

2 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

So how does that fit with the Club having an average of only 6 employees (as stated in their submitted accounts) in the 2023 accounting period?

Oh dear! Hope HMRC aren't reading this thread.

[The Blues Ox]

16 minutes ago, Griff said:

Oh dear! Hope HMRC aren't reading this thread.

I think you were sure about SL players having to have full time contracts as well wern't you?

[Tommygilf]

20 minutes ago, Griff said:

Oh dear! Hope HMRC aren't reading this thread.

It wasn't HMRC who you said were the problem with a self employment set up was it? I thought you said it was the RFL who had the employment contract rules?

[RigbyLuger]

2 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Not exactly a mind-blowing crowd, 1647.

Like Whitehaven the other week. 

[Griff]

24 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

It wasn't HMRC who you said were the problem with a self employment set up was it? I thought you said it was the RFL who had the employment contract rules?

The one follows the other. It'll be HMRC who'll be collecting any underpaid tax and NI.

HMRC have an employment status tool on their website. Test it out for yourself and see what you think. Be honest with your answers.

[LeeF]

36 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Like Whitehaven the other week. 

If Whitehaven had those levels of crowd then they would be happy and probably not in their current financial mess