I also wonder if the administrator will be giving evidence. In his public statements, he did seem to be irked by the fact his usual process of himself choosing the best offer for the creditors was interrupted by the RFL who effectively added a whole new set of criteria to the process.
I can see the RFL possibly being in a bit of trouble (this is like Senior's attempted claim on them re Crusaders), and possibly the players being added to the creditors list of the liquidated company, but the new company cannot have any liability on this. It's unprecedented. But that's us, Bradford Bulls, breaking new ground & pushing the boundaries of case law.....

If I recall right, the money withheld by the RFL from our funding was to repay Saints and other teams the money Green never sent for tickets the Bulls had sold.

I was under the impression there was something to do with fees for players loaned from the clubs owed too. Forget details though. Saints would be Lewis Charnock.

Either way I always wondered how this worked out - The money withheld from a new company with no links made no sense - if it was to pay creditors they were interfering with legal frameworks and making preferential payments to which the other creditors should have been able to make a claim?
They are in effect demanding a new company to be treat as the old under their terms which must have knock on effects whilst interfering with the liquidation etc.
if we had any money it would be interesting to see if the RFL were fair an just in what they requested demanded as conditions as a new company but in the sanctions they posed to a new company/organisation because RImmer i recall saying points deduction was decided entirely on the playing squad of old company being expected to stay which the new company did not A. legally have to take on, B - have the option. So treat as Old company, in terms of points, in terms of debts but id love to hear the HRMC's feelings on how this has circumnavigated the creditors processes whilst they argue about the former players "failure to comply with process"

The more you think about all of this mess, the RFL seem to be in it up to their necks!

I rue the day that Peter Hood ever got them involved in Odsal. I wonder if they rue the day as well?

An FOI request would be turned down as the act only applies for public authorities, a category which neither the Bulls or the RFL fall into.

I believe this case will more come down to the TUPE regulations and the transfer of labour from one company to another. I know the current club is a NewCo, but essentially I believe they could be claiming they should have been offered existing terms with said NewCo based on it being the same business, carrying out the same work, under the same guise... especially if the old Bradford Bulls had yet to be wound up (which I think only happened after the start of the season).

I'm not 100% up on all aspects of HR law, but i'm pretty sure that you cannot make a position redundant and then recruit someone else to that same role. This is where the claim may stem from.

Ok but Sidlow was the lead complainant and had he not left before new company was formed? thus he wouldn't be expected to be offered same terms etc. That would potentially rule it not to be part of new company in that sense?
I get your point for the likes of Chev and Chisholm who should have been tuped across but to me the release read more along the lines of claiming monies due as oppose to wrongful termination of contracts? I could be wrong but it seemed like they were claiming for wages unpaid - and it was targeted more to the old company.

That's a fair point and could be right.

Whatever the case, I'm with whoever said they hoped it got to court. I think whilst it could have implications for the club, it is also the single best opportunity to get to the bottom of the mess at the RFL... and potentially a huge change that is required.

Lets not forget, the RFL are the recipients of Sport England monies (public funding) so whilst they may not be obligated to respond to FOI requests, a scandal could force the governments hand to establish an independent enquiry similar to the one that has just taken place in cycling.

TUPE wouldn't be applicable because the NewCo did not take on the OldCo surely? They had to start from scratch so unless the RFL made a pigs ear out of it there should be no way to implicate NewCo...

But if they are guilty and end newco end up paying, surely newco can get this season's 12 point deduction removed.

This is gonna be a lot of fun!

No chance of that happening. The old company owed a hell of a lot of money to loads of different creditors. These guys wanting their redundancy/unpaid wages is merely only part of it.

Thank god we've something to talk about 'cos the rugby's shoite.

The RFL have to look after their members. They can impose any terms on a new member joining. The points deduction is the puzzler, the only way I can reconcile it is that we should have started in C1 not C, and therefore to make things more equal for other members we were deducted 12 points. In other words it was an adjustment to allow for the fact that they needed us for administrative issues to go a division higher than we should have, nothing to do with a punishment, it was just coincidence that it was 12 points, your honour. And the money, well that was a deduction for the rent, we think its rent free but actually its been paid up front by deduction, the fact that it was the same as amounts owed to other RFL members is a coincidence, your honour.

I hope they ran these conditions past a solicitor with enormous Professional Indemnity insurance...

So what comes first bankruptcy (again) or relegation?

Looking at this and previous posts and when he joined wouldn't be entirely surprised if its another halifax tool