PDA

View Full Version : Saints owed money by Crusaders



Mr. Messy
24th January 2011, 14:34
£2,300 and a few quid.

Warrington, Wakefield, Hull FC & Castleford are the other Super League sides owed.

Full List of Debt here.

http://www.redpassion.co.uk/images/cru-creditors-list-full.jpg

To which we'll never see...

Saint Simon
24th January 2011, 14:43
I'm sure Sir Mac isnt short of that!

E Saint
24th January 2011, 15:20
£1.1m owed to the RFL (£700k RFL and £424k to Staff Pension Fund C/O RFL)!!!

When will the powers that be stop throwing good money after bad?

forward ref
24th January 2011, 16:37
Some other local companies on there owed a few - Elisons and Fairfield Hospital for two.

Long Fancies It
24th January 2011, 23:33
I'm sure Sir Mac isnt short of that!

That dosn't matter, it's the principle! The RFL have been moving heaven & earth for this club, (wrongly in my opinion) for far too long. 6 players broke the immigration law last year which meant THE CLUB commited an absolute criminal offence: the RFL did sweet FA, but look how they caned Widnes for its financial irregularities a couple of seasons ago which was a LESSER offence. Talk about moving the goalposts. The Crusaders could commit corporate manslaughter and the RFL would turn a blind eye.

oldun
24th January 2011, 23:39
I bet Wakefield could do with the £534 owing to them lol

Red_V_Roger
25th January 2011, 02:41
With the GBP 4 billion HMRC let Vodafone off with GBP 440K is peanuts!

Buddy
25th January 2011, 08:47
£1.1m owed to the RFL (£700k RFL and £424k to Staff Pension Fund C/O RFL)!!!

When will the powers that be stop throwing good money after bad?

Sadly never, they wont admit the strategy of prostituting the game for the sake of 500 new welsh supporters is flawed

The Chair Maker
25th January 2011, 10:39
That dosn't matter, it's the principle! The RFL have been moving heaven & earth for this club, (wrongly in my opinion) for far too long. 6 players broke the immigration law last year which meant THE CLUB commited an absolute criminal offence: the RFL did sweet FA, but look how they caned Widnes for its financial irregularities a couple of seasons ago which was a LESSER offence. Talk about moving the goalposts. The Crusaders could commit corporate manslaughter and the RFL would turn a blind eye.

The immigration case was for pre SL, and was not for last year. The RFL cant expect to be an expert in immigration law, infact the issue was only discovered when a whistleblower leaked certain irregularities in employment practises to the Government. Otherwise this case would never have seen the light of day.
The word at the time was that many RL clubs in the lower leagues were using the same methods to avoid immigration law, but because someone grassed up the Crusaders they were the ones caught red handed. The other clubs just kept quiet and then changed the way they recruited Aussies.

What Crusaders did was wrong, but then its nothing like as bad as What Wakefields Chairman appears to have done re Trinity. Which is a really terrible situation for the fans.

eddiewaringsflatcap
25th January 2011, 10:49
The immigration case was for pre SL, and was not for last year. The RFL cant expect to be an expert in immigration law, infact the issue was only discovered when a whistleblower leaked certain irregularities in employment practises to the Government. Otherwise this case would never have seen the light of day.
The word at the time was that many RL clubs in the lower leagues were using the same methods to avoid immigration law, but because someone grassed up the Crusaders they were the ones caught red handed. The other clubs just kept quiet and then changed the way they recruited Aussies.

What Crusaders did was wrong, but then its nothing like as bad as What Wakefields Chairman appears to have done re Trinity. Which is a really terrible situation for the fans.

Worst of it all was his appeal to the fans to throw some money his way so he could carrying on destroying the club.

The Chair Maker
25th January 2011, 11:10
Worst of it all was his appeal to the fans to throw some money his way so he could carrying on destroying the club.

I dont think its about that. Its about him bailing ship before the lawyers get involved. He would then escape any liability and not be disqualified as a future director of companies. The fans however would suddenly find they have invested in nothing more than an empty shell of a company with no assets, and owing an awful lot of money.

Talk some sense!
25th January 2011, 13:02
I dont think its about that. Its about him bailing ship before the lawyers get involved. He would then escape any liability and not be disqualified as a future director of companies. The fans however would suddenly find they have invested in nothing more than an empty shell of a company with no assets, and owing an awful lot of money.

Isn't it a case that if the £500k of investment they require isn't met then the money will be returned? And in the meantime it is sat in a seperate account.

Div
25th January 2011, 13:52
The immigration case was for pre SL, and was not for last year. The RFL cant expect to be an expert in immigration law, .

.


Well the RFL employ in-house lawyers so why shouldnt they given its such a major part of many clubs staff roster ?

eddiewaringsflatcap
26th January 2011, 09:29
I dont think its about that. Its about him bailing ship before the lawyers get involved. He would then escape any liability and not be disqualified as a future director of companies. The fans however would suddenly find they have invested in nothing more than an empty shell of a company with no assets, and owing an awful lot of money.

Thanks for that. Very interesting indeed.

Tobias
26th January 2011, 11:12
The immigration case was for pre SL, and was not for last year. The RFL cant expect to be an expert in immigration law, infact the issue was only discovered when a whistleblower leaked certain irregularities in employment practises to the Government. Otherwise this case would never have seen the light of day.
The word at the time was that many RL clubs in the lower leagues were using the same methods to avoid immigration law, but because someone grassed up the Crusaders they were the ones caught red handed. The other clubs just kept quiet and then changed the way they recruited Aussies.

That's not entirely the case, I'm not sure how the powers-that-be discovered the 'illegal' workers but there is a simple explanation for how it occurred.

The problem arose, it appears, due to the type of visa the Crusaders' Aussie chaps applied for in 2007. Prior to 2005 many Commonwealth sportsmen (aged between 17 and 30) were able to apply for what was termed a "Working Holidaymaker Visa". This type of visa allowed Commonwealth citizens to work in the UK whist on 'holiday' for a period of up to 2 years. This permitted Aussies and Kiwis to come to the UK to play part-time in the lower leagues without the need for a work-permit and be paid for their services. Many lower division clubs used this legitimate route to employ Aussies and Kiwis on a part-time basis.

In 2005 the Immigration Rules as a whole were revamped and this included changes to the Working Holidaymaker Visa. The significant change to the Working Holidaymaker Visa provisions was that the work undertaken must be 'incidental' to their extended holiday and must not be the main reason for their stay in the UK. This rule change meant that those in the UK on a Working Holidaymaker Visa would then only be permitted to work for no more than 12 months of the 24 month period of their 'holiday'.

As a consequence those who continued to work for more than an aggregate period 12 months in that 24 month period would have worked illegally and in breach of their visa conditions. Under existing Immigration Rules any individual who has breached the terms of a previous visa or who has made false representations on a previous visa application will automatically be refused another visa for a period of 10 years.

The issue may well have been a simple misunderstanding of the visa rules which are applied to the particular type of visa the Crusaders' players had obtained or a total ignorance of the significant changes to the Immigration Rules.

The type of visa which has been required throughout the divisions for non-EEA citizens since 2005 is what is termed a 'Sportsperson Work Permit'.

Prior to 2005 it wasn't unusual for Aussies and Kiwis to be playing in the lower leagues on a Working Holidaymaker Visa as they would almost certainly we working part-time; but because of the rule change in 2005, the Working Holidaymaker Visa was no longer appropriate.

Another point to note with the changes, the Immigration Rules require an individual who seeks to obtain a UK work permit to be sponsored by his employer. A sponsor must be registered with the UKBA prior to the application. All Super League players, by the nature of their full time RFL contracts, would need a work permit and that permit must be supported by the sport's governing body, in this case the RFL.

luckysaint
26th January 2011, 12:28
I bet Wakefield could do with the £534 owing to them lol

yes but also, how much do Wakey owe to us?

Wanderer
26th January 2011, 13:29
Tobias: thank you for that explanation. I had wondered what it was precisely that had changed in immigration law to put the Crusaders' (and other clubs') players on the wrong side.

Tobias
26th January 2011, 15:40
... Its about him bailing ship before the lawyers get involved. He would then escape any liability and not be disqualified as a future director of companies....

Not under current legislation, the resignation of a director will not in itself let him off the hook if there is any suggestion of wrongful trading leading to the insolvency of a company, the powers that be can look back a number of years ... not that I am suggesting there is such an issue with any of Wakefield's directors.

Scouse Don
26th January 2011, 16:48
That's not entirely the case, I'm not sure how the powers-that-be discovered the 'illegal' workers but there is a simple explanation for how it occurred.

The problem arose, it appears, due to the type of visa the Crusaders' Aussie chaps applied for in 2007. Prior to 2005 many Commonwealth sportsmen (aged between 17 and 30) were able to apply for what was termed a "Working Holidaymaker Visa". This type of visa allowed Commonwealth citizens to work in the UK whist on 'holiday' for a period of up to 2 years. This permitted Aussies and Kiwis to come to the UK to play part-time in the lower leagues without the need for a work-permit and be paid for their services. Many lower division clubs used this legitimate route to employ Aussies and Kiwis on a part-time basis.

In 2005 the Immigration Rules as a whole were revamped and this included changes to the Working Holidaymaker Visa. The significant change to the Working Holidaymaker Visa provisions was that the work undertaken must be 'incidental' to their extended holiday and must not be the main reason for their stay in the UK. This rule change meant that those in the UK on a Working Holidaymaker Visa would then only be permitted to work for no more than 12 months of the 24 month period of their 'holiday'.

As a consequence those who continued to work for more than an aggregate period 12 months in that 24 month period would have worked illegally and in breach of their visa conditions. Under existing Immigration Rules any individual who has breached the terms of a previous visa or who has made false representations on a previous visa application will automatically be refused another visa for a period of 10 years.

The issue may well have been a simple misunderstanding of the visa rules which are applied to the particular type of visa the Crusaders' players had obtained or a total ignorance of the significant changes to the Immigration Rules.

The type of visa which has been required throughout the divisions for non-EEA citizens since 2005 is what is termed a 'Sportsperson Work Permit'.

Prior to 2005 it wasn't unusual for Aussies and Kiwis to be playing in the lower leagues on a Working Holidaymaker Visa as they would almost certainly we working part-time; but because of the rule change in 2005, the Working Holidaymaker Visa was no longer appropriate.

Another point to note with the changes, the Immigration Rules require an individual who seeks to obtain a UK work permit to be sponsored by his employer. A sponsor must be registered with the UKBA prior to the application. All Super League players, by the nature of their full time RFL contracts, would need a work permit and that permit must be supported by the sport's governing body, in this case the RFL.

Or you could just forget to fill the forms in !! lol

SAINTSGUS
26th January 2011, 21:07
The list of creditors is quite sensational and asks a number of questions

(1) Did they ever pay anybody?

If you as a Director of a Company commit to credit knowing that you will not be able to pay, you lose your limited status become personally liable

It looks like this is seriously the case and Mr Samuel may find himself in difficulty

(2) How did the RFL put in £700K which was repayable? When £420K was owing to the players pension scheme, which no doubt the RFL will now have to make up.

(3) How can you owe so much PAYE/NI- the payroll cost would be £2million on which PAYE wasn't paid...lot of money that

Can of worms........

Trinity & Mr Richardson next.......

Red_V_Roger
27th January 2011, 01:10
The significant change to the Working Holidaymaker Visa provisions was that the work undertaken must be 'incidental' to their extended holiday and must not be the main reason for their stay in the UK. This rule change meant that those in the UK on a Working Holidaymaker Visa would then only be permitted to work for no more than 12 months of the 24 month period of their 'holiday'.

As a consequence those who continued to work for more than an aggregate period 12 months in that 24 month period would have worked illegally and in breach of their visa conditions.

Just for info - Australian working holiday visas from British citizens are just about exactly the the same....no more than 12 months in 24 and the intention has to be to 'holiday'. Aus Working Holiday Visas can be extended by working some of the time in rural areas. So the the field is level between the rules of both countries.