Itsa shame that 3 of the 6 are from overseas. Not the way you need to build imho.

Would it be a bit disrespectful for people to suggest which 5 players they wouldnt mind losing??

As mentioned in previous posts, rumours suggest Burgess to oz and Elima to France but its been suggested crookes is off to Hull too. That would leave 2 others. I suppose they would be high paid players that maybe shouldn't be commanding such a high wage?

I expect this is what Noble has been discussing with prospective buyers.

Ross H just tweeted this quote form BG

"There's an opportunity to reshape the squad with 17 players out of contract at the end of the year."

Good - it needs a sort out. If losing particular fringe / injured / not up to it players means we keep the likes of JB, EW etc then I'm not gonna argue for one minute.

Be interesting to see who Nobby chooses to stay and let go though.

I think its nailed on that Elima, Burgess and Crookes will definitely be leaving (or, more likely, have already fixed up to leave)

Presumably Wakefield would take Sykes off our hands?

Then there's any number of OOC people that could readily be shown the door - the likes of Sibbit, Pryce, Walker etc

So losing 5 players looks to be on the low side to me

I think it means that there will be 5 players going by redundancy now.
Might be cutting some on longer contracts and on high wages. Scruton (2014), Purtell (2014) maybe to clear the decks.
Probably Sykes (2013)
and maybe a couple who are 2012 but dont figure in selection.

There is no reason to ditch top players who will be OOC 2012 anyway. Burgess, Elima etc.to play the season out

Wouldn't it make more sense to pay off players OOC at the end of the year? Anyone contracted out to 2014 would surely be due more money that then counts on our salary cap for those years should we survive.

There could be players on and off contract who might not want to stay for starters. Will investors want to pay wages that some of players are currently on. There are loads of problems for Bulls to sort out even if saved.

Don't think it's possible to pick and choose with regard to player redundancies tbh. Afaik it's the entire squad or none.

If we are going to lose players then we have to at least keep the spine of the team and the youngsters together.

I,m sure there other posters who are more conversant with redundancy pay than me, and would welcome any corrections.
Redundancy pay is only due after 2 years of contract & then at 1 weeks pay (for players 22 year old to 40 year old) for each year of contract. So most players would not be due a great deal, if anything
It does not matter how long into the future the contract if for.
Under a Liquidation the redundancy pay would be paid by the government : Redundancy Pay Services
I'm not sure that applies to Administration.
Likely redundancy payments come under the salary cap for this year, but the wage savings will be far more than that. Reducing the salary cap.

You might be right Mat, though in my first experience of such a thing I saw half the staff made redundant and the other half kept on to keep the company trading. so they did pick and choose then

Think this is Nobby`s job, sorting out who to keep and who`s gonna go!

In normal employment law your correct. But as well as the law of the land we have to answer to rfl as well, who hold a big stickbover us in terms of the license. Pretty certain they would take a dim view of clubs making players that didn't fit in their future plans anymore redundant. Can't remember an example of a player being made redundant.

The administrator can sack anyone he wants, provided its not on the usual discriminatory grounds. The rest get TUPEd across to (any) successor business.

Those staff who are paid off are entitled to statutory redundancy pay, accrued holiday pay etc and pay in lieu of notice. Up to certain upper limits, in an insolvency situation these are paid by the DwP, who then stands in place of the employees as a preferential creditor.

Any amounts owing to employees above the statutory maxima rank as unsecured creditors. This applies especially to e.g. players with fixed-term contracts. And they take their chances with the rest.

The best news this week (if any news is to be believed) is that one of the consortium is insisting that
the young players be retained and that the Bulls retain their SL licence.
The players we loose I expect to be those weaker ones on high salaries.