Joined: Sep 01 2006 Posts: 5139 Location: Wall Street
gingerspice wrote:Ok why pick rovers over saints they have not been financially stable last two seasons so let's put saints in there to.
OK no probs, add Saints to that list. It doesn't disguise the fact fact that some of the reasons many are saying Wakey will lose their license also applies to a number of other clubs.
I personally would keep Wakey and dump Quins.
Motto of the week -
It is the way of the weak to secretly bleat to those in authority rather than fight their own battles.
sandy wrote:is it just the taxman they struggle to pay on time then?
You mean the bill that has been paid in full
Get ready for the tax man in the sport there are some big bills to be paid Wakey was the lowest thats why the HMRC came for them to get a judgment, the bill was paid but who will be next?
Joined: Jan 16 2010 Posts: 7138 Location: Ramsey Street, Brough
REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:You mean the bill that has been paid in full
Get ready for the tax man in the sport there are some big bills to be paid Wakey was the lowest thats why the HMRC came for them to get a judgment, the bill was paid but who will be next?
Joined: Apr 06 2006 Posts: 1103 Location: The Heart of East Hull
REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:You mean the bill that has been paid in full
Get ready for the tax man in the sport there are some big bills to be paid Wakey was the lowest thats why the HMRC came for them to get a judgment, the bill was paid but who will be next?
Didn't say it hadn't been paid, it just needed the threat of court action before sir rodney came to the rescue.
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:You mean the bill that has been paid in full
Get ready for the tax man in the sport there are some big bills to be paid Wakey was the lowest thats why the HMRC came for them to get a judgment, the bill was paid but who will be next?
Think you might be mistaken there. IIRC the RFL is currently supporting a test case involving Leeds.
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Joined: Jan 15 2007 Posts: 11924 Location: Secret Hill Top Lair. V.2
Kosh wrote:Think you might be mistaken there. IIRC the RFL is currently supporting a test case involving Leeds.
Really? (and I don't mean I don't believe you), Interesting times.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.
Kosh wrote:Think you might be mistaken there. IIRC the RFL is currently supporting a test case involving Leeds.
With all due respect I am not. The issue you refer to is the different levels of tax for image rights relating to Rugby Union and higher rates for Rugby League. The test case with Leeds is because the owners have RU and RL they are trying to get the same level of tax for RL as RU.
This distinguishes it from Wakefield's case that is purely RL rumours floating about about at least one club owing a 7 figure sum. Not going to name the club but its not your team.
Joined: Jan 16 2010 Posts: 7138 Location: Ramsey Street, Brough
REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:With all due respect I am not. The issue you refer to is the different levels of tax for image rights relating to Rugby Union and higher rates for Rugby League. The test case with Leeds is because the owners have RU and RL they are trying to get the same level of tax for RL as RU.
This distinguishes it from Wakefield's case that is purely RL rumours floating about about at least one club owing a 7 figure sum. Not going to name the club but its not your team.
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:With all due respect I am not. The issue you refer to is the different levels of tax for image rights relating to Rugby Union and higher rates for Rugby League. The test case with Leeds is because the owners have RU and RL they are trying to get the same level of tax for RL as RU.
This distinguishes it from Wakefield's case that is purely RL rumours floating about about at least one club owing a 7 figure sum. Not going to name the club but its not your team.
Fair enough - that's why I said IIRC. I had heard that as well as levelling the RU and RL image rights there was a more general aspect to the case.
Interesting times.
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
