Casforum • The Leading Castleford Tigers Community

Allegedly, as covered by several regular posters on this board, I have been led to understand that the loan we had to have with our OWNERS AND CUSTODIANS of the club (Mr Fulton) has been designed to enable him to earn money through debt interest.

Firstly, I’d hate to think it truly is happening?! Is it, honestly?

It doesn’t sit well with me - at all -if it is the case.

Whilst I don’t In theory have a major issue with some version of this idea (such as covering expenses and time) I DO have a foul taste in my mouth at the idea the club is being taken advantage of and personal interest (and personal financial interest) being put before that of the club and it’s fans.

I do not want the foul taste to turn bitter!

Can someone please enlighten me and confirm? I’ve hopefully got it totally wrong and if so I’d be the first to apologise for any offence caused.

I don’t know about anyone else, but it troubles me and I need to know more.

Payment of interest on directors loans is a perfectly acceptable business practice and is common place. Such that if we dont the business has to pay tax at 5 percent on all loans where tax is not charged.

Nothing sinister going on.

St Albans tiger wrote:Payment of interest on directors loans is a perfectly acceptable business practice and is common place. Such that if we dont the business has to pay tax at 5 percent on all loans where tax is not charged.

Nothing sinister going on.

If it want for fulton family we would have gone along time ago to a part time team in championship so never slag off the hand that feeds you [-X

flow wrote:

St Albans tiger wrote:Payment of interest on directors loans is a perfectly acceptable business practice and is common place. Such that if we dont the business has to pay tax at 5 percent on all loans where tax is not charged.

Nothing sinister going on.

If it want for fulton family we would have gone along time ago to a part time team in championship so never slag off the hand that feeds you [-X

But it was Jack’s hand that fed us for years, not Ian’s...

if we had let investors into the club rather than the closed shop approach we have always gone down. the fulton would not have bought the club in installments.on another note i don't see ken davey holding a gun to the head at Huddersfield.i have a feeling all this will end in tears for us supporters.

That's what worries me and I only go on whats been put on here but if a loan was threatened to be called on the club if Ian Fulton didn't get his way on something that would leave me with grave concerns at what might occur somewhere down the line ...

If this is usual practice did Jack, and any others with loans, take interest on their loans or is this the first time it’s happened?

Did Jack ever put a gun to the clubs head and threaten to take his money, his not Ian’s, out of the club and kill it if he didn’t get his own way and full control? I do t recall it if he did.

People insist on trotting out the old line “If it wasn’t for the Fulton’s money we’d be gone” line. Fair enough to a degree but what about the bad mistakes made that got us in a mess that led to Jack covering his errors?

I don’t want to sound harsh or ungrateful because the mistakes were not intentional but some of them could/should have been avoided.

Also if this is usual practice does every other shareholder/BOD/Chairman take money out of Wigan, Saints, Leeds and Wire etc?

I'm not clued up on such issues but from my un educated view surely it's in Ian Fultons best interest that the club does well otherwise his shares become worthless.?

braytontiger wrote:I'm not clued up on such issues but from my un educated view surely it's in Ian Fultons best interest that the club does well otherwise his shares become worthless.?

Well not really right as he will always own the ground so he cant lose

Yes he owns the club which owns the ground. If he calls in the loan the club have to sell the ground to repay the loan. Leaving him with simply his money back. Net result to him of zero

Better option would be to have shares that are worth something and have an asset of the ground

Whats hard for people to understand is the money was only ever loaned to Cas by jack and all ian Fulton is doing is protecting his n Jackies inheritance. Woudnt we all do the same . Remember ian as no loyalty to Cas n infact hes not interested in rugby. I really dont like how this is going but what ian is actually saying is build the new ground move on and give me my money. Maybe hes sick of the ground development not happening. Thats why lateral have gone quiet

If the new ground dosnt get built he will be faced with the task of redeveloping Weldon road and not have a stadium being handed over that would be a stern test of any owner in fact I think it would be almost impossible to redevelop Weldon road to the standard required now

Had the ground not been allowed to fall part for 50 years then it may not be a massive job to upgrade and stay at WR, maybe no need to move.

The biggest reason, I believe anyway, for a move is to be able to sell WR so some people can make a few quid. Would be interesting to see how much money has been spent on the ground in the last 50 years. Won’t be much.

Lofthouse Tiger wrote:Had the ground not been allowed to fall part for 50 years then it may not be a massive job to upgrade and stay at WR, maybe no need to move.

The biggest reason, I believe anyway, for a move is to be able to sell WR so some people can make a few quid. Would be interesting to see how much money has been spent on the ground in the last 50 years. Won’t be much.

More than likely. Maybe sell it for 4 million. Clear the loan of 2 million ish and Fulton pockets the rest is prob how it will go.

I have no issues with any loans being paid back, that should be the first thing sorted on any ground sale. Fair enough.

It’s all the underhand threats to get their own way knowing full well the club can’t pay that is the annoying factor for me. I was led to believe the first batch of shares “Given” were in lieu of the debt. If so again fair enough if this then cleared or reduced the debt. This didn’t happen so why were the shares given then?

We now hear that another load of shares are proposed to be “Given” to said person. Will these clear the debt? Who instigated the free shares to begin with? We’re “All” the shareholders consulted? Appears not.

If all these shares make no difference to any loans then what is the point of giving them in the first place? If, and this is a very doubtful big if, the new ground is built, the old one sold then any loans eland, rightly so, then will all these “Free shares be cancelled? Again a pointless exercise anyway.

If the person with the most control has pushed all this through with no consultation with relevant others then that has to be a very poor and dismissive way to treat the shareholders that have helped keep the club going.