Gi4nts

This has been explained numerous times in greater detail than I will put here – but the basics are:

EDITED AGAIN TO BE MORE ACCURATE:
What you know to as Bradford Bulls never owed any debt. The players (contracts)/staff (contracts)/name/logo/history/agreements (for things like playing at Odsal)/Licence with the RFL and a whole host of other stuff you probably consider as "The Bulls" were infact (in a business sense) assets of the Bradford Bulls Holding company. The debts were not held by the assets they were also held by the holding company.

When the holding company went bust the assets were bought by a new company (OK Bulls limited) - but that company did not buy all the debts too. That is why they get the player contracts (as long as the players don't pull out under TUPE rules) but not the debts.

EDIT: Also, the player registration with the RFL is not a legal issue (as far as I'm aware) and is just something that the RFL run to prevent players being poached from clubs (as trade restriction laws prevent them from stopping you signing someone but they can set rules saying you can't play that person) - as such they can set any rules they wish as to who holds the registration.

I may be totally wrong on the reason for the player registration - but thats always why I have presumed it exists.

That's what I don't get. How can a club, who has promised not to talk to any contracted Bradford players, still manage to talk to contracted Bradford players?

Now you'll be confusing Mr 4ants..

Did they promise not to talk to them, or promise not to approach them ? If its the latter and the player's agent approached them then.......

So, what's the current argument;

How can agents break a non-binding gentlemen's agreement not to facilitate the hasty poaching of players who will soon be out of contract/out of a job?

OR

How can a club with legally binding contracts with suppliers, staff and players, run a business using a model where they knew those contracts could not be honoured?

Who are the baddies in this soap opera? Doesn't sound like Koppy.

1 - Koppy was not soon to be out of contract or job. Where was this a given?

2 - If you are alleging that the directors of the club deliberately ran it whilst knowingly insolvent (which is an offence) then either take your evidence to the police or the administrator, or consult your lawyer regarding the possibility of impending libel action.

I didn't make a statement, I asked a question. Still, I await my summons - won't hold my breath!

Are you saying that the directors didn't notice that they hadn't paid HMRC, or the RFL and that they kept on running a business, where they hadn't realised that they didn't have the funds to continue?

Perhaps you are suggesting they are incompetent or fraudsters.

No.

You did.

As far as I know what I said regarding player registration is the case - someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (which I freely admit I could be).

As I said, if what I believe to be the case is the case (i.e that it is not a legal thing and is for the RFL to make up the rules for themselves) then the RFL can frankly set anyone they like to be able to register a player. Considering that the rules also allow for clubs not part of the RFL/SL to be able to play in SL (and thus presumably be able to register players) with their permission then I don't see why they wouldn't say clubs who aren't members can also register play contracts.

Also considering that they arrange an "agreement" from the other clubs not to poach our players (all after we stopped being members of the RFL) then I would guess they are of the opinion we do still hold the registration - again though this is just a guess on what has been said publicly and I don' have access to the full rules behind registering players.

Presuming that they do say we can maintain the player registration we previously had, then we will still hold Kopczaks registration, which means they could - in theory - prevent him playing for whatever new club he has signed for (presuming he does plan on signing for a new club and isn't taking a career change - which is a possibility)

Ok Bulls just ratified as a RFL member. and was phrased as suspension lifted rather than admitted as a new member although that could just be way radio worded report.

No that could well be right, membership can be deemed to be continuous between two owners, according to the operational rukes, so suspension is more accurate.

that was what i was getting at. If membership was only suspended whilst admin/change of ownership was going through, and not revoked, then questions about player registrations would be irrelevent. RFL press release could be read is that we were only suspended too.

You've got it back to front. What holds the player registrations is the legal entity that owns and runs the business. To put it another way, if it holds the registrations, then it exists. You just need to know what you're talking about in the relevant context.

The reason I referred to "club" was because in this context it seems sensible to use the same terminology as the RFL do when talking about their rules.

... and ...

I hope this goes some way to lessen your confusion.


All you need to get your head around is that a limited company is a legal person, just like a real live person. Fred Bloggs could run a dozen different businesses, all trading under different names. let's say one of them is called "Club Derwent". An employee could well be employed by "Club Derwent" if that's how he ran it, the legal entity would be "Fred Bloggs trading as Club Derwent", and that would be the reality, though the name everyone would know was simply "Club Derwent". Nobody would ever use the long version.

Fred could get fed up of running Club Derwent, and sell the business to Joe Brown. See what he did there? Club Derwent is what the employees and customers know and love, and carries on uninterrupted. It had, and has, employees. Now the contracts have all been TUPE'd to Joe Brown. The business, including the burden of employees contracts, has been acquired by a new owner.

If Club Derwent had been a member of some other body, (like the RFL) that body might want to have a look at who the new owners of Club Derwent are, before confirming whether they are cool with the membership having been transferred to a new member, and if they are, then Club Derwent's membership of that body does indeed remain uninterrupted.

Quite clearly I pose a question " Is the current debate about scenario a, or scenario b". I do not anywhere state that the Bulls directors were guilty of any malpractice.

However, if it makes you feel better, I reckon that the Bulls board DID know that their business was unsustainable and that they continued operating in a situation that they KNEW would result in the non-fulfillment of payments the HMRC, the RFL, staff players and suppliers.

Or do you suggest the everything was lovely, then they woke up one morning and the just happened?

If they didn't KNOW they were in an unsustainable business position...why had they already sought the help of the RFL??