Sorry, I don't follow.

Oh right,

When is the deadline then?

No prizes for wondering why the fekk YOU have been conspicuous by your absence? Just a shame too many people listened to the likes of you.

the actual figures are the right direction for my estimate though a bit higher. Strange how a auditor either cannot divide £550k by 3 and multiply it by two, or not apply the gross figures rule for balance sheet balances. But £360k is a lot nearer £550k than £1200K. What is more interesting is that on the face of it there was a defence under the whatsits Development ruling ie they had that solicitors assurance that Cardiff had terminated the deal not Harris. But getting a solicitor into the witness box is a lot more difficult than getting a client in there, so practicalities may have ruled rather than precedents.

The figures are for the [iamount paid to Leeds including their costs[/i but obviously don't include the Bulls' legal costs, which should be added to show the full loss brought about by the action. I'd assume they would hardly have been negligible, though I guess it's possible there were no costs, given the relationship between the Bulls' then chairman, and their legal advisor Walker Morris. But with notional costs added it would bring the figure a bit nearer my own guesstimate of a sum pushing 7 figures.

apologies bulliac, my estimate was purely settlement, which is given as £550k for compensation and costs. our costs are give as £79K. even then there is scope for ambiguity as Coulby says that this is for related legal costs paid out 2005-8. in 2005 we were ordered to pay an estimated £64K for Leeds costs for the original hearing that established the breach. Now is this included in those legal costs or has it been given another title eg "Compensation"? Anyway, my total cost estimate is £550K + £79K + £64K = £693K. plus the unquantifiable management time. Approaching your £1m mark, but even so a lot less than the £1.2M some claimed. In terms of payment, its only the £550k that was paid in the years of fast decline 2009 - 10- 11, Coulby is unambigous that the legal costs had been paid out by 2008, so not relevant to the debate as to how much Harris affected us in those latter years.

Coulby in the League Express says the club owes(ed) 700k to HMRC with 450k overdue. In addition the club owe Andy Lynch money as well as other long creditors threatening action over long standing debts.



The club have recieved confirmation from the club's auditors of discrepancies in the 2010 accounts.

I read the actual full judgement a couple of years back, found when I was looking for something else. The basics of the contract were that Harris was only ever loaned to Cardiff, and Leeds had a contract for one year, to begin once the "loan" to Cardiff ended. I remember the judges conclusion on Harris was that he didn't really understand the contract (which I read as "he was a bit thick"icon_wink.gif. So the by the sounds of it, it wouldn't have mattered who ended the Cardiff bit, because Leeds had a year once the Cardiff loan ended.

250k VAT on Odsal lease - as previously stated. Due 30/4, agreed mayment (before all this) by five monthly instalments.



250k tax on image rights, going back years, payable three annual instalments, first of which now likely to be overdue.



85-100k (depending on who you beleive) April PAYE due 22/5 never paid, triggering HMRC winding up proceedings.



85-100k (ditto) May PAYE due 22/6.



So that lot of figures, total approaching 700k, reconciles with what is already in the public domain. And, if so, you can surely add June's PAYE due 22/7 to that list? Maybe less VAT refunds due, since with little income I suspect the VAT is a current net refund situation?



It would have been unfair to Lynch to comment previously on him still being owed money. If I know what this was about, it would not be from the club.



Other creditors were all frozen a fair while ago, at the latest once the club was deemed to be insolvent which would be mid-March I guess.



That last one is the new one. These of course would be accounts the auditors signed a clean audit report on. Be interesting to see what transpires, and whether it is material or disingenuous comment or hindsight after the event from Coulby. If the former, then it will be squeaky bum time in quite a few offices I suspect?



There are doubtless those who would argue that the auditors, having issued a clean audit report despite the wording of the going concern note, which might have warranted an emphasis of matter in view of the accounting policy note on going concern, and only six months or so before the business fell over AFTER an exceptional £1,25m profit on sale of lease, may well have been pooing their pants for a while now?

Who are the Bulls' auditors Adey? Anyone of any repute?

Why is unfair to comment on Lynch being owed money? Surely him being owed the money is the unfair bit?

A local firm. But remember, the accounts are the directors' responsibility, and whilst auditors make easy initial targets the finger of blame almost always points elsewhere.