No news from today's meeting??

Nothing resolved today apparently, further talks planned.

Cheers Duckman.

They must think they are getting somewhere as they wouldn't be further talks.

Little to me too unless there is clear evidence of collusion between the RF and chalo. That would be needed to get over the fact that the RFL advertised for interested parties to set up a club in the Bradford area, with the conditions laid out for all to see. The RFL could not know who was going to come forward and what their plans were, other than they included the conditions they had imposed. What we do not know is what conditions there were on the offers the liquidator received that caused the RFL to turn them down. The fact that they had their conditions - the 12 points penalty etc - completely up front might be a clue ( we will offer £???K provided theres no points deduction by the RFL, don't have to have an academy, etc). So that brings us to the prospect that it was all a stitch up for Chalo, and therefore some clear evidence of collusion to ensure that Chalo alone could get the deal.

no worries, and I tend to agree, but why do I think that wont be the way the headline is spun in the morning??

Needs its own thread I think.

I'll try and move the posts about this subject across but this isn't the easiest thing for a techno ignoramus like me.

Yay I think I did it. Please can we keep all tribunal discussion on here and leave the 2018 thread for team and coaching discussion if there is a team and a coach to discuss at the end of all this...

Latest stuff here. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... ord_Bulls/ Not sure about the involvement of the Govt department BEIS.

Latest stuff here. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... ord_Bulls/ Not sure about the involvement of the Govt department BEIS.

Adey's thoughts on TotalRL.com hereDon't be sidetracked by the "liquidation" nonsense that was pedalled at the time. If the claimants can demonstrate that this was in substance - if not in legal form - effectively a transfer of undertaking (that may be why the RFL are enjoined in the action, perhaps as a facilitator?) then there may well be a prima facie TUPE case

Whether this IS a TUPE-related action, or something else, we really do not know, though. So all we can do is speculate.

ps - the RFL did not buy any rights from the adminstrators. They bought some assets which they then supposedly sold on to Newco. The RFL already held all the rights regarding who could be admitted to the competition, and those rights trumped the normal commercial situation regaring selling assets and businesses the administrators were familiar with.   As Pettit made very clear in his statements at the time.

pps. makes you wonder if somewhere, between Bulls 4.0 and Bulls 5.0, the RFL effectively became the employer for a short period? Again, maybe in substance iof not in legal form?  Had not thought of that before, but could be a very strong reason why the RFL would be enjoined in the action?  The thick plottens...[/i

Really hope it gets sorted so we can just look forward to the new season with nothing hanging over us for once

You know it won't.

Whether the whole saga was conspiracy or cock up will all come out at Tribunal. I guess we'll see how much the RFL is prepared to risk that.

In regards to this, if I remember correctly wasn't there a new 'Bradford Northern' announced with ALL the players TUPEd over? They announced it before getting RFL permission. I vaguely remember looking at their initial website....

This was, of course, until the RFL decided that they were not the preferred owners and euthanised it.

However, if the players were TUPEd over, and then the RFL killed that off wouldn't the RFL have a responsibility to these players, as they have technically made them redundant once again?

Another post by Adey...
[i
IIRC, the claim is by 40-plus former employess - players and staff - of Bulls 3.0 (Bradford Bulls Northern Ltd) which entered Administration 14/11/16 and which entered Winding-Up ("Liquidation"icon_wink.gif on 3/2/17.

Incidentally, ignore totally any references to "liquidation" starting early January 2017. Although most folk think it did from the variious statements and reports at the time, It did not!  All those statements effectively said at the time was that the company would now be liquidated. As usual, a combination of ambiguous (for whatever reason, innocent or disingenuous) public statements and the media not really having a clue about how insolvency works led people to believe liquidation happened at the start of January.  Again, it did not.

I labour this point partly because the continued inaccuracy winds the financial pedant in me up, but also because the timing MAY be relevant (I speculate, really do not know!). Liquidation automatically terminates all employment contracts.  Administration does NOT.  This may or (probably) may not be relevant, but I flag it up for completeness if nothing else.

The other defendants are the RFL, and Bradford Bulls Northern Ltd (Bulls 3.0).

Why are Bulls 4.0 enjoined in the claim? I can only assume that it is because the claimants allege the TUPE rules should have applied when Bulls 4.0 took on staff?  i.e. that there was effectively a continuation of the business, and therefore employment?  And that, therefore, Bulls 4.0 are deemed to have acquired all the accrued employment entitlements of all those Bulls 3.0 staff who were still employed by Bulls 3.0 (in Administration) at the time the Administrators closed the business at the start of January (and maybe even some of those made redundant before then, if any?).  And that, therefore, Bulls 4.0 will be reponsible for settling the redundancy claims and also the claims of re-engaged staff? 

And why is the RFL involved?  Well there is the 64k dollar question?  It can surely only be because the claimants allege that the RFL was somehow party to it all, in an employment capacity? I can't see how else the claimants could have a claim against the RFL?

Now we know, or have deduced, that the Administrators looked to have had an offer or at least clear intent from Bradford Bulls Capital Ltd - Thorne's newly-formed vehicle at the start of January, pretty well immediately after the Administrators announced the closure of the business (NOT into liquidation at that point).  Certainly, folk were convening meetings at Odsal with staff saying they would be taking over, and seemingly offering contracts from what was reported at the time? But then the RFL stepped in, and effectively vetoed whatever was happening, and imposed their own requirements and timings.  The Administrators described those actions by the RFL as being "unauthorised" - by which I presume they meant by them - and the net result was the undertaking was sold not to Thorne (or anyone else) but to Bulls 4.0, owned (so the records say) by Chalmers and Lowe.

One assumes that the RFL's involvement in this process, and in effectively selecting the new owners, must be a/the reason why they have been enjoined in the claim?  Unless, of course, there is yet more to the whole debacle of a process that we are not (yet?) aware of? It would not surprise me one bit - given there has been loads previously over the history of the Bulls' serial insolvencies that seems never to have seen daylight -  but who the *** knows??  Certainly not me.

And, since I have limited confidence in the RFL's competance in matters legal, who knows maybe they screwed something up inadvertantly by not doing things properly? 

Bulls 4.0 attributed the dramatic downturn in performances during the season, at least in part,  to when this claim was launched, since it involved a number players who were party to the claim. I guess only the players and those very close to them will know if there was any truth in that?

I have no idea what the outcome of all this will be, not least because I have no real idea of the basis and particulars of the claim. I guess any OOC settlement (today or otherwise) will mean some of the true facts never become public?  I just hope it IS settled today, since the ongoing major uncertainty cannot be doing anyone any favours.[/i

 

 

That's what I said, however much less eloquently

I also wonder if the RFL withdrawing funding to pay off 'Rugby debts' further muddies the water. Why some but not others.