You'd assume so, but that just makes it worse, as obviously presenting 3 separate cases, and then presenting the defences of 3 seperate respondents, is going to take pretty much three times as long as it would just against us, and so probably double our representation costs at least. Great.

Agreed. I worry for the future of the game.
It is quite possible that the Catalans may be playing in the Championship next season. I would bet a few quid that the Union authorities are alive to that possibility and have contingency plans. When I visited Perpignan in the early years of Catalans it was a Union city. Perpignan RU were a top French team playing in the top league and European competitions. I'm sure the French Union will be prepared to invest in their game in that area and exploit any League failure.
Whilst the top administrators now receive remuneration packages previous regimes could only dream of , they have, for example, stripped the development departments of regional coaches.
. The Toronto owner has funded his enterprise without any help from the centre. In North America there are 100's of young athletes coming out of college every year who will not find a place on an NFL roster. Why not employ some RL coaches to tap into that market.
All your points about the NFL are valid. And a draft system is not unique to American Football or indeed American sports. Aussie Rules has a draft of young players ( based on similar principles of last picks first) which is not based on colleges/ educational establishments but on junior/ community clubs.

It could also boil down to which two respondents throw the other under the bus.

Does anyone (who maybe knows a bit about the legal stuff here) think that the players actually have a case against the new company?
And if so, why? AC said at the forum that the new club was not even formed until after the date of the liquidation.

Is that the date of the actual liquidation or the earlier time when we all thought the club had been liquidated, but it hadn't? Indeed, is that the whole reason why the new club is embroiled in this mess?

Does anyone know where or when the Employment Tribunals are being held?

AFAIK ET's are open to all members of the public, so we could just turn up and actually hear (something near) the truth?

Is the fact that the 12 pt deduction was against the old company and therefore how can the new company be penalised for a Company that has been liquidated ?

My understanding is that it cannot be held responsible for any debt or expenses of the Club (business) which was liquidated legally by the Administrator. If you read the administrators report (page 5) a better picture emerges and the RFL has much to explain?

I think the case will be heard in Leeds . The Tribunal courts are at City Exchange House on Albion Street - 5 minutes walk from the railway station.
It may be heard by a judge sitting on his/ her own or there may be a panel. That would be a judge and 2 lay members.
You are correct -most cases are open to the public. However any party can apply to the Judge to have the court " closed"to the public. The permissible reasons are pretty restricted.
I would imagine space will be tight. Four legal teams together with three respondents ( probably more than one person in each set) and the claimants( not all the 40 plus will be there) . And who knows how many witnesses will be listed to give evidence.

AS you say, the whole nub of the argument is that the 'new' company had the points deduction, were kept in the same league and had a funding deduction. These were the penalties that would have been given to the company had it been bought from the Administrator. Therefore the argument is that the new club is in fact the old club and is therefore liable. I liken the argument to buying a shop where the previous owners have gone bust. If you were to buy this shop you would not be expected to take up any of the debts of the previous owners even if the shop you open sells the same products that the old shop sold.

The difference being here though is the court case will be based on employment law and what legally can be done. The punishment handed down to new co was set by the RFL to keep everyone happy, hardly legally binding, just take it or leave it

But the employment tribunal will have to answer the question as to whether the current club are the old co or new co. That is why it is not just the new co that are going to the tribunal but also the RFL. The Administrator could also have input. It did seem that every option forwarded by the Administrator was rejected by the RFL. It could be seen that the RFL were steering the situation towards liquidation with a view to then being able to rip up existing contracts.

so if the employment tribunal rule we are in effect the old co after admin, not a new co after liquidation...do we get some points back?