And everyone knows how that went.

Whether we are liable will be decided by the courts.
Will the RFL get theirs? Not a hope in Hell. The worst saying ever invented was 'What goes around comes around'. Don't you believe it.

Maybe so, but if it does all come out in the wash that the RFL are culpable of 'engineering the situation' to better suit them rather than the players/club/supporters then there is going to be almighty stink.

Lets also not forget that one of the claims has been set against the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Now thats the sort of thing that makes headlines if something HAS gone awry.

Can't help but think that the people named in the claim more or less ensure an out of court settlement. Perhaps if Koukash does buy us he should change the name to Bradford Cynics.

Bradford (Tax) Dodgers?

Well yes, but the RFL will state that your, [i'engineering the situation'[/i, was actually [i'safeguarding the integrity of the competition'[/i, which is probably (in fact undoubtedly) part of their raison dêtre and writ large in their articles of association. To be honest, I have no real quibble with that; it is after all their duty to ensure that crooks and ne'er do wells don't get their dirty mitts on any of the member clubs - even if it means telling an administrator that his [i'preferred bidder'[/i would be considered [i'persona non grata' [/iand, that being the case, their winning the bid would reduce the value of their club as it would be unable to play any matches in the RFL's competition.

Must say I like the idea of government being brought into the case - it lends a certain gravitas to know that ministers are on the same charge!

Whilst the RFL should safeguard the integrity of the game they should have to give valid reasons for not accepting people. Personally I don't think "but your name isn't Chalmers or Lowe" is a valid reason.

Somehow I doubt that particular reason, if indeed it was, will be given in court and, in any case, that accepts the point that they [ihave[/i to give a reason and maybe they don't have to. A bit like being refused service in a pub - landlord's discretion, and all that.

But surely in a case were the Administrator legally bound to get a good deal for Creditors he must be given a reason for them not accepting a bidder. They can't just say 'No we don't accept him as a fit and proper person and we don't have tp tell you why. Nerh,nerh na nerh nerh'. That type of reasoning could only lead to Tribunal hearings. Oh... wait a minute.

Yeah, my understanding is that the administrator has to get the best deal for the creditors (it's usually them who will be paying his fee anyway) but his problem is which deal. The one which claims it will pay everyone back every penny but won't be allowed to trade (whether the people wanting to run the company are barred as directors or unable to get approval to 'trade' in a sporting league, etc) maybe doesn't stack up in that situation. It's very possible that one offering less on the top line but which will be able to trade going forward would actually offer more in the long term?

I guess the admin is appointed because of his experience and expertise and, on that basis, you'd have to accept that he knows what he is doing and accept the outcome. Unless a financial trade body (an ombudsman, for instance) says there was negligence, how does a judge declare one bid better than another? He will know the legalities but critically won't have the expertise or experience to decide the financial outcome implications himself.

I'm not sticking up for anybody in all this btw, just playing devil's advocate.

I don't think it will be too difficult to prove that there was some avoidance of TUPE legislation. A case of c0ck-up over conspiracy if you're being kind.

I think I made the point that the decision was sort of taken out of the administrator's hands. He didn't sell the club. he couldn't agree a deal. So it was pushed through the gate labelled "this way to liquidation".

If all the RFL did was judged "fit and proper" that would I think be something else. If they went further, and basically said "we're preferring the bid of ChaLo cos it's best for RFL" then that's something completely different.

E.g. what if Mandy Koukash, Richard Branson and Roman Abramovich were each bidding a million more than ChaLo and all would pass a "fit and proper test". What if the administrator wants to sell to one of them; but the RFL prefer ChaLo as owners, so give them the nod. If that scuppers the administrators plans to sell to anyone, or even the best bidder from creditors' POV, then I can see why creditors might well have an issue with that.

If ChaLo were the only bidder, or the only one who passed the fit and proper test, that would be different, but nobody seems to know, and all bids were shrouded in considerable secrecy. What must have been common ground though was the obvious point that any bid would be 100% conditional on being accepted into membership by the RFL.

The more I think about it, the less straightforward it is. Can a Tribunal even get involved in second guessing what would or might have happened had the RFL not restricted the field? (If, indeed they did?) Will the administrator be a witness? Great stuff. If we were a murder mystery, we'd be on Series 4 or 5 by now, and so far, nobody would ever have really found where any of the bodies were buried. If this all gets settled, we'll never get to know much this time round either.

IIRC Chalmer/Lowe had a bid accepted by the administrator and the RFL before Xmas which was rejected by the Marc Green. I seem to remember that Gren rejected bid at last minute as rumours went round about the millionaire bloke from Halifax (Leo holdings ?) at same time and supposition was Green thought he'd get more money from him.

The one thing for certain is we couldn't make it up..

I'm guessing that unfortunately we won't get to know any of these answers and that the case is going to be one of 'Is this new company actually a new company or the old company'. A new company would obviously have to start from scratch with only a few weeks to get a team and staff together. This was obviously the case as we have all witnessed. But I seem to remember Mr Rimmer saying that a 12 point deduction was necessary so that the club would not benefit from their financial crisis and that they would still be OK with the squad that they had. If he did say that then he obviously did not believe that it was a club that was a new entity that would have to build a squad from scratch.