I would think it would be standard TUPE rules, but looking at Rangers siutation just makes it confusing with them having the belief that players are in the wrong. They have threatened court action although I can't see how they would win the case with TUPE rules as I understand them. Not sure whether The RFL can influence it, they may turn round to the other clubs and say they won't register or allow clubs to sign players who are under contract for Bulls next year, highly unlikely though and I think it is safe to say we will lose a number of players this off season.

I think the reduced SKY monies ( as you are currently spending next years now ) will sort out who you keep and who you lose , a severe tightning of your belt will ( should ) be the order of the day

Rather depends on how much cash the new owners can afford to pump in. It's conceivable they could make up the shortfall - and more.

Bulls Holdings Ltd are void. OK Bulls Is the new name therefore new contracts.
tupe really only protects for instance players who the new owners want shut of but are still contracted. Those who want out can opt for tupe not to apply. Khan ain't going to argue with those wanting to go, he needs to dramatically slice wage bill, they will be running on an incredibly tight/ budget next year. I predict they will end up with a very poor team of rejects not wanted by other SL clubs. I predict a good few players on whopping wages will receive payouts to clear off as something drastic needs to be done to cut wage bill.

still got to pay the RFL the going rate for Odsal, no doubt they will want the money upfront next year to make sure they get it.

Correct, I'm sure the creditors will all be impressed when the new owners cough up millions a couple of months after screwing them with a peanuts offer

Why would they need it upfront? , they can just deduct it from the SKY money, the bulls will be getting 3 pound fifty the way they are going next season

Wouldn't look good, would it? Also wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened. Seems unlikely though.

How, pray, will they have "screwed" the creditors?

This was supposedly the best offer on the table. Would that unpleasant bitter Leyther you quoted have preferred that there had been no bid? As usual, he is talking out of his back passage.

If the creditors have been screwed, it is most certainly NOT by the buyer.

Not by the buyers no , but definatley by the Bradford Bulls name and the sport, I'm not bitter and am trying to keep emotion out of my posts , but lets not pretend this has all been a good thing, it has been an absolute farce and a complete mess for the Bulls, the sport , for SL and for the supposed security of the licencing system put in place by the RFL

It does effectively show who is in charge of the sport, and it isnt the RFL, the SL club chairmen have the power now, so essentially SL is now an absolute closed shop , I hope they dont cock it up, because there wont be much left underneath it if they do

What drives your obsession then, if not bitterness?


You come up with some nutty stuff, but really - the situation gas been about as dire as it could be, for fans, players, staff and creditors. How TF do you work out that anyone, anyone at all, said or thought that this nightmare has "been a good thing"?


No idea where you get that from either. A business was failing and in danger of going under completely, in a double-dip recession somehow somebody was still found to buy the business, and that's pretty much it. Of course, the clubs, RFL or SLE can't win; for every one like you arguing that it's a closed shop, that they just scratch each other's backs, there's another who says the opposite, that it's only because it's Bradford, that they wouldn't do the same for this club, or that club, or the other club. So which is it?