They were in good company on Monday, Carlisle United. Also scheduled to appear in the Bankruptcy and Companies Court, Court Room One, Floor One of the Rolls Building before Mr Registrar Baister were Clayton Street Chip Shop, the Dog and Duck Public House, Eight Til Late Limited and PJ's Vehicle Hire.

One hundred and twenty-three firms, in total, were down there on the Companies Court Winding Up List, each no doubt in varying states of financial health. Some will have dealt with the minor inconvenience of the day, others face a more challenging outlook - PJ's, for instance; served with a compulsory strike-off notice on May 9, since suspended due to an objection.

Carlisle United Association Football Club (1921) Limited sought to place themselves in the former category. They were "surprised" their name was on the list, they had not been notified of any such proceedings and, having made enquiries, the affair turned out to concern a claim made in late May that had since been dismissed.

United, then, did not suffer the indignity of having their directors dragged down to London to defend their honour. The winding-up petition served by HM Revenue & Customs was no longer active and the only rolls building they needed to concern themselves with was for the lunchtime sandwich run.

In simple terms, that was that; likewise a pair of county court judgements made against the club earlier this year, totalling more than £20,000. These, the club said, either shouldn't have been lodged in the first place, or were the result of "misunderstandings" which were being resolved.

One trusts that destination has been smoothly reached. Yet there is a reason some are finding it difficult to move along from this, as those at the top of United would no doubt prefer.

It is because, at absolute best, these appearances on legal lists are not a good look. Even if we take the kindest scenario possible - that the Blues are the most unfortunate club in the land to encounter mistaken and misunderstood legal petitions from two companies and then a premature salvo from the taxman, all in the same six months - there is the effect on reputation.

"Once the Winding-Up Petition is public knowledge," writes Keith Steven on the website of The Gazette , the UK's official public record since 1665, "suppliers and lenders may want to cease supply, further exacerbating the company's problems." The freezing of the company's bank accounts is another possibility.

There is nothing to suggest United have faced such damning outcomes. But going anywhere near a page where this is described as a risk cannot be good for the club's face. A winding-up petition is "considered a last resort, only used when all other approaches to retrieve the debt have failed," Steven also notes.

Alone, such an action is easier to present as an unfortunate circumstance. In a climate where other firms have also taken last resorts to resolve payment discrepancies, less easy. One begins to ask about the environment in which these last resorts were pursued, the reasons why United are cropping up in these places more often these days, however matters are eventually resolved.

They are not, it should be said, the only football club to face a winding-up petition in recent times. Notts County encountered a pair of them in 2016 before Alan Hardy's takeover. Leyton Orient, unsurprisingly, had their share under Francesco Becchetti while Hartlepool United's former owners JPNG had to deal with three in less than eight months.

Only this Thursday were Bolton Wanderers landed with their latest. They also expect to clear the matter before their due date, while another club, Bury, struck a defiant tone in a statement in October last year.

"HMRC appear, by their actions, to be intent on winding a football club up and, sadly, as a result of this we have dealt with a number of petitions in recent times, more often than not for tax which has just fallen due for payment," a Gigg Lane statement said.

Bury's owners defended their running and financing of the club, while supporters appeared to approve of their investment in the team - though Dominic Martinez, representing a group of shareholders, told The Guardian that it was concerning to see "the good name of Bury dragged through court cases for non-payment of money owed". They wanted "more transparency about the finances".

That there were grounds for questioning the club's "good name" was striking there, and United must be disturbed by what their own series of court matters is saying to other people about them. To the layman it is alarming that a company with such an executive structure, and owned in certain cases by well-known local businessmen with successful firms, were surprised to find their company's name on a winding-up list.

It may well have been the case that the "surprise" reflected a belief that the matter had been dealt with ahead of any possible proceedings. One wonders, though, how things got as far as they did in the actual paying of whatever HMRC wanted.

If this was the taxman being over-eager, as Bury suggested was becoming the case, one would expect this to be highly frustrating to those who set store by Carlisle United's image. Equally, it is fair to ask why certain "misunderstandings" could not have been intercepted before they happened. How much of it was accident, how much design, how much was it events being in control of United rather than the other way around.

How tight things are, in other words, and why. A theory that this was going to be a big summer of change at Brunton Park, stimulated by Edinburgh Woollen Mill's fortune and acumen, has proved at best premature. United have lost more players than they have signed, there have been these awkward court matters, and whatever Philip Day's firm want to do for the Blues in the long-term they are remaining very quiet about it, in word and deed, shirt sponsorship aside.

Their power, through a "loan facility" secured against the ground, is of course considerable and it will be interesting to see how this pans out should United continue in their current shape. Carlisle's chief executive Nigel Clibbens said recently that EWM had "fully bought into" the club's pre-season work, but their take on United's appearance on the Companies Court Winding Up List would be interesting to know.

One senses, broadly, that this would be a good time for a more open disclosure about the condition of United's finances, a deeper explanation as to why certain things that were not happening before are coming more frequently now. Without this, they cannot be surprised if the theory it is all a big misunderstanding is something many - like the club with players - are struggling to buy.