Quote: thepimp007 "Thats the thing, but didn't Pettit make everybody redundant? Wouldn't that clear the need for TUPE if the players were clubless'"
Did he? If so when? Do you know that for sure? If it was that simple why would there even be a case?
Even if he did if a new club suddenly pops up with the same stadium, same training centre, same (some of the) staff, etc. The RFL also insisted that any Newco must suffer a points deduction, reduction in central funding and pay off some "rugby debts" of the old club and comply with all sorts of conditions (MUST PLAY AT ODSAL) that could only ever apply to a continuing operation. No way would any totally new entrant be so penalised or constrained. Newco then re-hire the players to then play in the same kit under the same name. It looks to me like avoidance of TUPE to me at the very least. Cramer undoubtedly has a case.
Otherwise why would the RFL have had a top barrister try and get most of the claims dismissed on a technicality (absurdly, as the judge ruled) if they weren't genuinely concerned?