It was reported that they were on a no win no fee case. So I'd guess they have a good chance of winning the case, otherwise why would anyone take that amount of claimants on a no win no fee?

You are worse. All of your posts are pessimistic whinging rubbish, unfortunately none of which you delete. Which makes you rubbish all of the time. If you had 100 attempts at answering the question "what is the first letter of the alphabet" you are bound to get it wrong 100% of the time.

I do hope this useful thread isn't going to be derailed by any more of this petty point scoring?

Can we try to keep to the thread please.

I see in the League Express someone asked Chalmers why, if the case is "without merit" the club are seeking to come to a settlement.

"Settlement is a practical process, given how there isn't one party or respondent - there are four."

"There's the claimant group then four respondents, so the practical considerations that would involve a long process with 47 claimants, seven days in court and lots of lawyers involved means that perspective needs to be brought into reality."

Anyone able to de-cipher this cobblers?

I guess he means that reaching a settlement would be cheaper than going to court and proving their point?

Thanks Nothus.

I guess that's their spin anyway. Part of me wants it to go to court to see how Rimmer's "moral compass" holds up. The other part wants it all to go away.

It can't be simple, that is for sure. With 47 claimants (maybe some with their own lawyers) and four groups being sued (each being separately represented?) it seems mired in complexity, and therefore cost, from the start.

The lawyers will certainly spin it out as long as possible before settling if at all. If it goes to tribunal and they win they'll get all their costs paid.

Whether it's a fear of the mounting costs or the result of a tribunal it looks like the lawyers for the claimants are in the driving seat to me.

I'd expect one stumbling block to any settlement will be agreeing who pays what into the pot.

[iIF[/i the owners of the 'new' business took specialist legal advice (as they should) before buying/taking over/setting up the 'new' business they may have some comeback against that 'poor/wrong' advice if they end up with a hefty payout bill. [iIF[/i they didn't take any advice (or possibly advice from a non-specialised source) then more fool them. The old 'caveat emptor' applies here, and, [iIF[/i the whole 'new club' saga was all part of a master plan then it would be even more important to check out the fine details, especially if the plan wasn't yours.......

Well, let's hope it doesn't take the same route as Peter Hood's 'membership scheme', which meant a large saving on VAT except it didn't..

I still despair of the thinking behind that one.

Mr Dog makes some important points. I'm sure these won't be lost on the current owners and the RFL now, I'd suggest they wish they'd considered them 9-10 months ago. Can see it costing quite a bit to settle. If the claim is in the region of £1.2m then you add all the costs it could be an eye-watering settlement.

Best get those season tickets on credit card if you're wanting one before the case begins.

To be fair, the idea was probably fine, but the implementation was far from fine and was let down by someone who didn't look into it properly and take appropriate advice. If you're going to have a 'membership scheme' then set it up legally and in a watertight manner and not in some halfd, 'it'll be reight' way.

But do we know what the Bulls credit card arrangements are?

The latest wheeze is that if third parties are used such as Sage Pay or Skrill etc, then you are not necessarily covered, and there is no way of finding out either. the catch is, if a retailer uses a third party to take the payments, if they don't port that money straight through to the retailer (eg account to them periodically) then the credit card companies are successfully arguing that they are not a party to a relevant debtor-creditor-supplier agreement and escaping liability

Apparently they took advice from the RFL. They heard they were a professional body. At least that's what it said on the toilet wall. "For professional advice call Red Hall and ask for Ralph".

Does anyone have any information about the tribunal case? Are the parties still talking or have they reached the point where the employment tribunal in January is inevitable? For me and I suspect for many others this is the reason why I am not at this stage renewing my season tickets just in case the finding goes against us and the club goes t*ts up again