THE notification by the administrator that Halifax Town's liabilities (excluding any monies "donated" by those who have been in effective control since last summer) total more than £2 million came as a shock, even to me.

Last year I protested at the special treatment given by HM Revenue and Customs to organisations such as Halifax Town and Leeds United. At that time we were told that the debt owed by Halifax Town to me and all other taxpayers was only £100,000, a figure which we are told was paid at the time of the previous winding-up petition. Now the figure is half a million pounds.

I hope the administrator reports the facts to Companies House directors disqualification unit, since it has to be asked why the club was allowed to go on trading for a further 10 months by the people who have been perceived as "white knights".

I appreciate that the silent backers have lost money but presumably they have done this willingly, whereas the taxpayers have had no choice.

The list of creditors published on the Courier web site makes interesting reading. There are obviously those who have lent money either as directors or well-meaning benefactors but also the small traders, even schools.

My experience of insolvency cases also shows the inevitable geographical expansion from the local area as the club has run out of local suppliers and has had to seek credit from further afield.

The club has, according to the Courier, been losing £30,000 a month, or £7,000 a week. Given the average attendance at the Shay this represents £50 per spectator per match.

The backers may now come out of the closet and what I imagine fans and others like me would wish to know is what is going to be different the next time round.

Perhaps the financiers will do away with the limited liability which a company gives which might mean they will act in a more responsible fashion. Some chance!

One thing about the latest Halifax Town fiasco which caused me to smile is that one of the texted quotes after each match comes from "The Taxman". Is this the reason for the softly, softly approach by Revenue and Customs?

Peter Broadley