The Cheerleader/caterers/printers and everyone else is owed money by Bradford Bulls Holding Company Ltd - they have now gone bust.

The trading name Bradford Bulls has been transfered (or "bought"icon_wink.gif by a new company OK Bulls Ltd, they don't have to pay the Holding Companies debts. They would have to pay any debts in the name of Bradford Bulls (note soley Bradford Bulls, not Bradford Bulls Holding Comapny Ltd) but since there were no debts in this name then they do not have to pay anything. The contracts for the players are held by Bradford Bulls, and as such are covered under TUPE rules and still valid (but with an option for the players to refuse to TUPE)

For what it is worth I hate holding companies for this exact reason, but this iis the bones of the situation. Non of the creditors had deals with Bradford Bulls (though they might have thought so), they had deals with Bradford Bulls Holding Comapny Ltd. It's a legal loophole designed to screw over the "little man" but there is not much you can do about it without re writing the law.

With regards to Kopczak - as I see it he has resigned under TUPE rules which he is fully allowed to do - however Bradford will still hold his player registration with the RFL until 2013. Legally Bradford Bulls will not will a argument about him leaving the company, but the RFL could rule that to transfer his registration whoever he has gone to have to pay the Bulls, or they could rule that he is unable to play until he can file a new player registration in 2014, but they could also rule that due to situation we have been in that he was allowed to seek alternative emplyment - it all come down to what the RFL decide and I don't see why we need need solicitors for that.

Yep happened here too about three years back. Carrying on working is classed as acceptance but you get a period of time (14 days rings a bell, could be wrong) from the date of the transfer to consider your options, take legal advice etc. You can decline to move over up to this point but you won't get paid for any time worked inbetween if you choose to resign your position. Once this deadline lapses you are part of the new company and new contracts issued for signing. So in theory whether they've played since or not all players have until friday to notify the club of their desire to leave and become free agents, if they don't do this then they are staying.

At least thats how it was explained to us at the time!

Sorry but that is all completely wrong.

Don't get hung up on the word "holdings". Bradford Bulls (Holdings) Ltd WAS the trading company. (There is no entity called "Bradford Bulls Holding Company Limited" - and never has been). In this case, the company never was a "holding" company in the more strict sense of the word - it was only ever called "Holdings" as far as I can see because it had subsidiary companies, and I suspect the lottery company had to be a separate legal entity at the time for some reason.

OK Bulls would NOT have had to pay the debts of ANY other entity - be it Bradford Bulls Ltd or Uncle Tom Cobleigh & All Ltd. There is no "legal loophole". There has been no abuse of any "legal loophole". It is perfectly clear everywhere - or should be - what legal entity you are dealing with.

"Bradford Bulls" is anyway just a brand name, and therefore an intangible asset of the entity that owned it. There was and is no legal entity called "Bradford Bulls". Bradford Bulls Ltd is actually the lottery company.

Nothing whatsoever untoward has happened simply because of the word "holdings". Total red herring.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it the inability to service the cost of player's contracts that caused the club to go into administration?

And now the newco has taken on those very same players contracts and with less SKY money to service them!

It beggars the question(s), does the newco have the means to service a salary cap of (say) £1m next season or has the exercise (as I suspect) of transfering over contracts been a means to enable them to asset strip by selling players? I think Kopczak's decision (and the Hull FC defeat) speaks volumes. The price of each player shot up after the sale and those who didn't opt out of TUPE may now face even more uncertainty and the likelihood of being asked to reduce their contract values if they stay.

Of course, I am ssuming the newco isn't cash rich. I base this assumption on how the buy-out of £250,000 (of the oldco) is in 2 instalments. It hardly suggests the new owners have loadz of cash, does it. I reckon a number of Bulls players will regret not opting out. They still have the opportunity to do so - a good employment lawyer can use mitigating circumstances and the fact all of the players were given permission to seek new clubs by the administrator prior to the club being sold. Those players who signed notional deals with other clubs will be well within their rights to leave (as far as I am aware).

TUPE Regulations state. 'If your conditions of work have been worsened by the transfer , you have the right to terminate your contract and claim unfair dismissal on the grounds that actions of the employer have forced you to resign. You cannot make this type of claim solely on the grounds that the identity of their employer has changed unless that change is significant and to your detriment;'

Given the above it could be an interesting legal debate.

Ah, a long running legal battle, excellent, we haven't had one of them in a while, and given our track record what could possibly go wrong?

IMHO, any player who doesn't want to play for the shirt next season needs to leave. There is no point keeping players like kopout if they don't want to be here (for whatever reason). Any player at the club would be right to consider his options given whats happened this year, but I think there are ways to do it and ways not to, and the only real way we know this was not the right way is Whiteheads comments in the t&a. If Kopout had talked to the players last week, kept it quiet in the media and the news was released today I don't think I'd have a problem with it, but to turn your back on your teammates on the eve of the final game of the season stinks, and says all I need to know.

Hopefully we can move forward with players that want to be here once the rfl give the new owners some clue what league we'll be in and the new owners can then sort out the squad. The longer it drags on, the more likely it will be that players sort out alternatives, and you can't blame them now the seasons commitments are over. (just a thought, if the tupe deadline for consideration by the players is this friday (?), whats the odds on the rfl telling the club what league we'll be in on sat? thus forcing some players to pick up other options before Fri?)

Adey,

This is of cause correct, and I wasn’t trying to claim that anything untoward had happened, I was simply trying to point out in layman’s terms the difference between the sporting team Bradford Bulls and the company that runs it – and show how this differentiates between the right to collect a payment for debt from the new co (which you can’t) and the right of the new co to continue the contracts of the old co (which they can) – no easy task and is why the law is so complicated (and lawyers can charge so much).

That said I wasn’t aware that the holding company in this case was in fact the same as the trading name Bradford Bulls, it does make me wonder why bother having a holding company at all but as you say that may be because of the different companies under one “brand” if the lottery and such are separate.

I still stand by my point though that holding companies are generally (though maybe not in this case) a legal loophole to allow debts and liabilities to be hidden in a separate company to what people believe they are dealing with, this of cause is just my opinion and should not be taken as fact. Although it is correct that it was probably clear in most contracts that people are dealing with a holding company your average “mum and dad shop” who (after the taxman) are the ones who are losing out here won’t understand the ins and outs of this and will (again mistakenly) think that the holding company and the trading company are one and the same.

Again, from what you say that wasn’t the case this time (and I don’t know enough of the ins and outs to say otherwise) but my opinion is that generally this is the case, which is why I call it a legal loophole – because its legal but 99% of people won’t understand what is happening.

Thanks for that, and for not jumping down my throat. Fully understand now the point you were seeking to make, and without a doubt yes, the legal form etc is something many very small businesses should not really be expected to have to deal with. In this case, no there was nothing whatsoever untoward as I think you recognise, but yes I have seen examples where unscrupulous businessmen have seemingly sought to confuse their trading partners with entity names. So I think it is perfectly fair for you to emphasise the point.

And it is not just the very small businesses that get confused. At one of my last companies, wearing my credit management hat (one of several dozen...) early doors I indentified several customers where we had insured credit limits, in two cases over £1m, where (sometime previously) in each case entity A had sold the business to new entity B, with a similar-sounding name. But it transpired we still had insured credit limits on Entities A, which were now dormant, whereas Entities B owed us a shedload...and we had no insurance on them at all! Just as well I fixed it, since one of the Entity Bs went belly-up a year after I left. OK, its not quite the same point you were making, but its from the same stable - beware dealing with company B, when you THINK you are dealing with company A!

we have 17 of our current squad out of contract at the end of NOvember come what may. Already Jeffries, Sibbit and Burgess have confirmed that they wont be staying! the fans are under no illusion that next years squad will be smaller and/or less good than this one (which finished 2 points above your team after a deduction unlike any seen in SL before!)

the point here isnt to do with servicing the player salaries (which was done thanks to advances in monies from the RFL, which the newco will have to forgo!) its about transfering players contracts. Kopzcak's timing showed a lack of respect for his team mates and the club as a whole! As far as i understand, only the out of contract players were told to find new clubs as Guilfoyle knew that the only real assets the club had was its younger players on multi year contracts, such as Kopzcak!

Got to say I feel very disappointed in Koppy, but if that's kind of guy he really is then we're better without him. Feel for the other players though, where it seems the news hasn't gone down too well. In hard times, I guess you need to know who your friends are. Hope Huddersfield have an 'interesting' season next time round.

Been away and shocked to read this! Can't blame anyone for leaving after all this, but atm it feels like he's let his teammates down and the fans too.

He's not irreplaceable, but it's always difficult to see home grown talent leave.

You can't really blame him for wanting to move and secure his own future, however the timing and how it's been handled is a little dissapointing and I can see how people feel let down, especially by a local lad

The RFL opened the can of worms with contracted players when Blake Solly said all players could seek to start negotiations if the SLE bid was accepted. it would be very hard to prove if/when a contracted player was actually approached by another club.......Not another long drawn out battle in which the only winners are the lawyers raking it in whilst The RFL and clubs fight amongst themselves again.....

Fortunately at no point was the SLE bid accepted, so no contracted players were given permission to negotiate.

Interestingly, Koppy will be the only Bulls player to not get paid for Sept/Oct - unless his new club makes him the assistant groundsman for that time - as the registration period for the 2012 season has now passed.

I would assume that once players accept this months wage (on the 14th) they could not then decline to be transferred?

From the Rangers perspective - Mr Green is fighting some players transfers as he believes it was too late after the TUPE. It's all about the registrations now for them. Some clubs like Everton (naismith) have paid up an acceptable transfer fee just to stay out of it.

I wonder how the RFL will rule on Koppy's registration? Or will a deal be done behind closed doors?

Is he claiming unfair dismissal? My understanding of the TUPE regs is that you can walk away from your employment contract and not take up the new employment should you not wish to work for the new employer. Don't think anyone can be compelled to work for the new company. Surely this is exactly the same situation as rangers?