I never understood why Hudds let the Mason case go to court so all the dirty linen (Kopczak) could be aired in public. If there is anything in the Bulls allegations, then the RFL will be desperate to settle. What could they offer I wonder?

I don't think anyone will be playing at Park Avenue as the ground is overgrown and boarded up, [or do you mean joining with Park Avenue at Horsfall?

Whichever, I don't think either of those are really goers to be fair. Probably staying at Odsal for the foreseeable, I'd guess.

Couple of months rent?

Maybe it depends on whether you have a good name you wish to protect? Money, may be most things, but it isn't always everything.

It can't be sub judice until a case exists, i.e. a date is set for a hearing by the court.

It won't get that far as Green states he is "keeping options open"...I think this means, when Bulls become mathmatically down, any threat of action will drop.

Of course, if Bulls start picking up points...then it gets interesting.

This latest development by the owner is a disaster for supporters of the Bradford Bulls.

Financially motivated: gamble up to £50,000 with possibility of staying in Super League (a net gain in funding of about a million). A business decision worth going for - especially IF Club you own owes you money.

Guess case will be dropped as soon as it is clear that even 6 points points back wouldn't avert relegation. Expect it will be spun out with minimised costs until that point.

Even if it went the distance and the Bulls "won", I expect the outcome would NOT be 6 points back. More a case of the Court requiring a change in the RFL's FUTURE procedures so that it is In Future bound by precedent and, in particular, has to have a set points penalty for going into Administration and with a set scale of reduced points deduction based on the % owing to creditors repaid from the sum paid to the Administrator to acquire the business.

Either way, this snookers the Bulls as it inhibits planning/ signings for 2015 whilst doing nothing for them ending up in the Championship for 2015.

Indeed, things could be even worse IF the Club owes the owner anything and IF HE WOULD INTEND TO GET IT BACK OUT OF THE PARACHUTE PAYMENT.

Absolutely not, the RFL is not some sort of public body, the Court will have zero interest in how it conducts its affairs or frames its rules in the future. You don't understand the nature of a civil case. A person sues another, claiming some civil wrong and seeking some civil remedy. That's it. If the dispute is based on rules, then that part will be about what the rules mean, and whether they have been correctly applied.

In this instance, the scope may be very limited. I don't of course know, as we haven't been told and no details made public, but as the Independent Panel refused to hear the appeal, then on the face of it, the High Court might simply be asked to consider the validity of that refusal; if the Bulls win, the logical outcome would be to simply order the Independent Panel to proceed to hear the Bulls' appeal.


Not sure what that even means. Seems to make no sense, and I don't see the connection.

That was dealt with in the RFL Policy Review and was part of the changes voted in by the clubs alongside the new league structure. I believe it is due to come into force from the start of next season.....

[i5.3.15 The current maximum sporting sanction, following an Insolvency Event, of 6 Super League/9 Championship points should be increased to a mandatory 12 Super League/18 Championship points. Board discretion to reduce this penalty on application from a club will be removed.[/i

... so not only can't the court order them to do it, but they've already done it!

I posted this on the VT:

When SL was created, Keighley threatened court action against Rfl for not giving them the promotion they won fair and square.

I'm not sure about my facts here, but the Rfl banned/suspended them from playing (they dragged some clause out of the rule book) for the duration of the case. As keighley simply could not afford not to play they had to withdraw their action.

This will be interesting and could get dirty.

I'm sure Green thinks he has a case or why do it?

It is in the rules that the RFL can if asked advise what they would do if a club suffered an insolvency event. When Carter asked them I would imagine the conversation would have gone along hthe lines of: on the basis of precedent, 6 points deduction and funding deduction of £1.2m in the year as its the last year of this Sky deal, which in effect means relegation to the Championship for you.

I can't remember the details, but wasn't there a case a few years back when a football team was not relegated because they had an ongoing legal case against a points deduction? They could not be relegated as the points may be given back? Or have I just made that up?