Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 8th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Evening Courier site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Shaymen's winding up is dismissed



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 June 2008
A HIGH Court action to wind up Halifax Town has been dismissed, administrators revealed last night.
A petition by the Inland Revenue against the club has been rejected, said administrators Begbies Traynor.

The company, looking after Town since the Shaymen went into administration in March with debts of £2million, did not make it clear what would happen next.

But it did say said it was aware a newly formed Halifax club was in talks with the Unibond League to play next season.

It suggested the company would remain in administration.

The statement said: "Although it is not possible for a Creditors' Voluntary Agreement to be approved and the Football Conference has expelled the club from its competitions, the administrators are continuing to act in order to try and maximise the realisations from the company's assets."

Players have now either been released or put on the transfer list.

Yesterday documents and a £5,000 deposit were sent to the Unibond League, paving the way for a Halifax team to compete in Unibond's Division 1 North.

League secretary Phil Bradley said: "At first glance, I do not see any problems."



The full article contains 193 words and appears in Evening Courier newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 25 June 2008 9:55 AM
  • Source: Evening Courier
  • Location: Halifax
 
Prev
1
Next
1

deegee,

cleethorpes 25/06/2008 14:02:10
There are eight weeks to the start of a new season, hopefully in Unibond North. We have no players, no manager,no pre-season friendlies arranged,no season ticket sales, no commercial activity. I have always believed that a consortium led club was the best way forward but realise now that I have been seriously conned. When are the consortium going to what is right for the club instead of pursuing their own secret agenda. It is inconceivable that someone would pump so much money into the club, despite not being the owners, just to keep it alive- without an ulterior motive. It is my belief that the consortium were put into the club to make sure something remained hidden or someone protected - maybe from a previous regime. We are now in a position where we could liquidate and go into the Unibond North debt free but the consortium are refusing to go down this route - can anyone explain why ? On Tuesday we were promised a statement from the Adminstrator to clarify the situation. What a joke! It indicated that a winding up order by the Inland Revenue had been dismissed. Why? What is the point. It also said they were trying to realise assets - of which there don't appear to be any. That was it - a very clear explnation of what is going on. I thought the Administrator was supposed to be impartial or acting on behalf of the creditors but this lot seem to be the lackies of the consortium -getting paid for what they are told to do. Prior to the second adjourned creditors meeting Mr.Sadler said that if a C.V.A. was not agreed by 10.00am the club would be liquidated by noon. Why was this not carried out? I wish now that we had voted for a trust run re-formed club. The consortium could then be left to play about with the old club to their hearts content.
2

Brigantes,

26/06/2008 17:19:07
I have said it before but i'll say it again.Call the police!
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Features

Today's Vote

Web Idol 08: Vote for your favourite. Click here to watch the entries.
1. Frank Crossley
2. Kathy Haigh
3. Sarah Cheesewright
4. Rachel Reinhardt
5. Alan Widdop
6. Amanda Gatehouse
7. Steph Parnham
8. Rick Tomlinson
9. Rebecca Renehan
10. Kelly Dinsmore
11. David North
12. Keith Noe
13. Rose Renehan
14. Ben Healey
15. Prav Makh
16. Matty Harris
17. Doreen Norris
18. Peggy Padgett
19. Kate Stansfield
20. Rachel Cawood
21. Luke Bowers
22. Lyndon Harris
23. Paul Topham
24. Joanne Taylor
25. Gemma Pell
26. Jason Collins
27. Matthew Pell
28. Ian Webber
29. Joanne Beevers
30. Taukeer Butt
31. Bethany Jackson
32. Frank Hunt
33. Zoe Jones
34. Stan Halcrow
35. Omar Jordan
36. Rachael Davis
37. Joseph Bray
38. Sara Shiroda
39. Roisin Geraghty
40. Sarah Teagle
41. Ruth Gardziel
42. Mark Terry

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.