You don't have to defend it in court - in employment matters, you just have to reach a reasonable belief and act accordingly, within your own policies and procedures.

As someone with an extant warning, Mr Cockayne is eminently sackable.

they may have to defend it in an employment tribunal. we don’t know the facts just yet. let’s wait and see.

regardless of this, somebody will take him for next season even if hkr get rid or don’t renew at the end of the season.

we signed tevita leo-latu afterall.

Indeed - it's a bit depressing isn't it?

They are considered debt,but they are likely to be subordinated loans.If subordinated they are unsecure.The provider of the subordinated loan cant just call it in -- the loan agreement would have to have been broken.
It is still classed as debt,but its fair to say that its not classed as "proper debt"

I agree and as I said they are unlikely to be called but to dismiss them as not proper debt as the two posters did is wrong. They could be lethal in certain scenarios. IMHO they would be better off without them, certainly not such a high percentage as it does leave them very exposed especially in the current climate where many apparently wealthy individuals are going under. I mean that's pretty much how we lost control of BV.

I agree with you(amazing i know).

I understand Harlequins have circa £5m/£6m subordinated debt.Which just shows that the business model quite simply isnt viable,when someone is having to pump in millions each year just to keep them afloat.What happens when someone like David Hughes at Harlequins decides he doesnt want to put money in anymore!!

About time we gave Mohammed bin Hammam and Jack Warner jobs at the club.

It all depends on the outcome, but if he has breached club rules and that is deemed serious enough to be classed a gross miscounduct he would expect to be dealt with same as any other employee in any other profession, which could lead to dismissal, then Mr cockayne would have to go down the appeal process, that's if he has breached Club rules, usually all parties involved are suspended as routine to allow a fact-finding investigation to take place.

I don't think it's a case that the RFL don't like directors loans, more that they prefer clubs to be able to finance their activities from their operational activities - i.e. to be self-funding and not sustainable. A business which is unable to service it's loans is not sustainable and there is a danger that any business which relies on 'loans' being used as a bail out, even without the immediate requirement to re-pay, may one day be re-payable and could therefore render a club insolvent in an instant.

It would be exactly the same with us if Parkin had bought the club. He would have 'loaned' the club money to pay our ways, initially at least, but we wouldn't care at the time because we would be succesful - probably.

So unless the loans are required for payback now, or that the lender himself is struggling, then it shouldn't be a problem - for now!

They would get done for theft in our case, we only lease the ground

I agree, I was one who wanted him out after the beating up of the bloke on CCTV. To be fair, on the field he is a good, solid player who always gives 100% for 80 mins, even when the others gave up (after 20 mins against Wire), but he has become a liability to the club and should go. He will get a new club though, someone will have him as he will be cheap on the cap and covers several positions.

he's a thug, simple as

I agree.