Werent crusaders signing players when they were in admin?

What's the alternative? Go into liquidation and give em even less?

I don't always agree with your posts, but I'm with you on this one. I'm a Leeds fan, and banter between teams is well and good, but no real fan wants to see this kind of thing happen.

As others have said, whatever mismanagement (I think being frankly unlucky with planning applications hasn't helped anyway) has gone on, the fans aren't responsible for that.

Here's hoping the creditors can be given as fair a deal as possible and the club can bounce back stronger for the whole sorry affair. Time will tell whether that means staying in SL or dropping down and coming back later (not my call, others will make that) but one way or another there's too much history at Trinity to disappear.

Good luck, and I hope you fans (even the gobby ones ) get the club you deserve out of all this.

Welcome to a free economy these laws are designed to help the small companies and as such without them we my as well be ruled by Stalin

in liquidation your assets would be stripped and sold as a means of repaying your debts, so whilst there will be a food chain os to who gets what atleast some would get something near their entitlement!!!

The only assets the club has are the players, who would be available for free.

Here we go... taking the moral high ground eh!

So can you point us in the direction of where you posted similar comments on the Crusaders board after their RFL sanctioned pre-pack? Have you written to your MP to complain about the current issue with Company and administrator law? What would your suggestions be for an alternative system? I have already suggested compulsory credit insurance for all companies who wish to limit their liabilities... but don't agree with it!

You are not taking any bloody moral high ground, you are just a bitter troll!

The clue is in the title... Limited Company!

Grow-up! It is always a shame when any company goes down owing even small amounts of money and it is always the smaller businesses that suffer, but business is business! And yes, it has happened to me and yes, it is rubbish, but I and the companies I knew know the risks and also we did have credit insurance that did pay-out for some of our loss!

I see where you are coming from and I agree with you I run a small business and been knocked 3 times by company's who have gone bust and they have started up again straightaway with just a small name change.Until the government change the law it will keep happening

As a Saints fan, may I just take the opportunity to offer sympathies with Wakey fans on this news. It is very tempting for other speccies to throw the boot in, but this misses the point in distinguishing between the obvious failings of the board as opposed to the loyal and steadfast support of the fans - the people who truly support and love their team.

WTWRLFC seem to have been run like a dysfunctional working mans clubs for a while now with a series of broken promises and failure to build on a small but steady core of support.

If, and in the world of RL, it is a big if, Wakefield are replaced at the end of this season, it would be good to see new owners abolish the ridiculous Wildcats moniker and rebuild their club from the grassroots up which I am not sure was ever done under Ted.

Great theory but a quick fire sale of assets from a club with no others assets than some players at the lower end of the league would mean even less money, that is why most parties would prefer admin to been liquidated! Now stop trolling and get back to living in a country with different laws which is built on borrowed money against oil and had a serious cash issue last year themselves!

Khlav... don't bother mate, they can't see past the end of their noses some of these posters. They don't get that settlements may well have already been agreed and probably 40+ people keep their jobs. But apparently putting another 40+ people out of work as well as none of the creditors getting any money as well, is a more 'moral' deal!

I don't think playing contracts are voided through the act of entering Administration - given that the whole point of Administration is to try and save the business as a going concern. The Administrator can of course terminate any employee, but then the employee is entitled to his statutory entitlement backed by the state, and for the balance he ranks as a creditor. Unless a player's contract has a provision allowing the player to void the contract if an act of insolvency is committed (unlikely?) then I'd say the players remain under contract, and most would probably want to remain so so that their employment rights were preserved?

Players would presumably transfer to the successor club under the TUPE rules, with contrcats and employment rights carried over?

I'm not fully familiar with the situation with playing staff under an Administration, so if anyone can improve on that I'd be keen to learn too.

Sad day for the whole RL family, Hopefully thou this is the start of a new world.

Onwards and upwards you have the backing of all decent Rugby League fans.

In pre-packs where the buyer is the same in all but name to those who put the company in to administration i would agree with you. However when a company is sold to new owners after administration, it is simply a more pragmatic approach.

The options are the company gets liquidated and creditors get a pittance, the business is closed everyone involved loses their jobs or the company goes into administration, the creditors get a pittance but the business stays open and people keep their jobs and hopefully the business grows. I know which I would prefer,

Just because a business goes into administration doesnt mean there isnt a call for the product or the underlying fundementals dont have the potential to grow a successful business.

In this example, good luck to Wakefield. IMO it is a frustration that an area that so obviously has the potential to be a RL asset has for so long been an also ran, with internal division and infighting restricting the realistion of that potential, hopefully a clean slate will see this Wakefield move forward from strength to strength.

I also think people are being a little presupmtious that this will be the nadir for Wakefield in a similar way it has been for Widnes, there is nothing set in stone here, and it is probably 50-50 at the moment whether this is the beginning of a new dawn or the beginning of the end. Lets hope for the former.

One note of caution, When Leeds Utd went in to administration, the largest creditor ended up being a mysterious off-shore company which insisted the former owners regained control, and paid rent to a mysterious trust who owned the stadium, lets hope there is no similarities here.

I think employment law would rule, as you state, so unless they have some sort of termination clause in their contracts, which I doubt (why would you?), then TUPE would be used to bring the new employees over to the new company.