Report on Total RL website confirming That the tribunal against the old company, Cha-Lo company and RFL will go ahead in Jan, after RFL failed to get majority of cases thrown out. www.totalrl.com/rfl-appeal-dismi ... -tribunal/ Wonder what the current regime think about current players being involved and what harm (if any) it does to us offering Chisholm a contract next season, fitness permitting. Still think Cha-Lo have nothing to be concerned about, they were told the old club was dead, so bid for a new franchise against a set of criteria from the RFL which did not include settling legacy payments and contracts. Perhaps if the case is lost but Cha-Lo are found to have no liability for above reasons we'll get another penalty plus hold back of funding from the RFL to pay for it, as we are the FFL's pets!!

Report on Total RL website confirming That the tribunal against the old company, Cha-Lo company and RFL will go ahead in Jan, after RFL failed to get majority of cases thrown out. www.totalrl.com/rfl-appeal-dismi ... -tribunal/ Wonder what the current regime think about current players being involved and what harm (if any) it does to us offering Chisholm a contract next season, fitness permitting. Still think Cha-Lo have nothing to be concerned about, they were told the old club was dead, so bid for a new franchise against a set of criteria from the RFL which did not include settling legacy payments and contracts. Perhaps if the case is lost but Cha-Lo are found to have no liability for above reasons we'll get another penalty plus hold back of funding from the RFL to pay for it, as we are the FFL's pets!!

I have to be honest, I don't understand what's going on really.

I don't see how the new club can be blamed for any of what's going on in the past.

Agreed. But I suppose in some way they, and us, have been already with our delicious 12 point deduction.

Interesting that the RFL kept money back for this out of the new clubs funding. Seems they have decided that although it is a new club they have links and need to have liability despite trying and failing to prove otherwise. So the RFL punish a new club with the old business's failings two fold by withholding monies due in central funding and a points deduction.
So how do the new business prove they are not liable as they are a separate entity but with the same name? the governing body have treated them as the same and thus are they in the wrong? I note it is them that are trying to get it thrown out? how as a governing body do you justify player welfare and interests as paramount when your taking them to court to try and suggest they shouldn't get any of the money you withheld for such purposes?

Fantastic point. The RFL by witholding money are directly and giving a new franchise a 12 point deductions for the failings of the old club points liability straight to the new club. I bet if we had started on zero points with no central funding witheld for this outcome it would be a lot harder to prove any liability other than the new club buying the imaging etc of the Bradford Bulls from the RFL. Sounds to me again the fault of the RFL that the newco are getting dragged into it by treating newco as old

I suspect its all that plus the shenanigans that went on just before liquidation became a fact. iirc one of the bidders went and spoke to all of the players about the marvellous future for them a day or two before the RFL rejected all bids, then put out their own terms for a new club - academy, Bradford area, points deduction, payment deduction, etc. It did not include the requirement that the new club called itself the Bradford Bulls. Shortly thereafter up pops chalo, and the Bradford Bulls. I am a cynic rather than a conspiracist, but even I am veering towards something untoward going on, and if it is the RFL that are behind it then they should pay, not our ex players or new players the club and most important us long suffering fans.

Now I don't claim to be any legal expert so hopefully some on here could help.

Will we ever be able to find out what happened with all the hijinks instigated by the RFL last minute before the sale? Ideally a freedom of information request though I suspect the non disclosure agreements will protect them for now.

I imagine knowing this would clear a lot of the doubts about the new owners as well as laying bare what the RFL have done with the money supposed to have been distributed from our central funding.

Presumably if any case went to court then the RFL would have to explain how the two entities are different if one can be punished for the crimes of the other.

Oh look, it must be summer holidays at the special ed school

oh look, another armchair fan

Actually I prefer a sofa. More room to stretch out.

Yet, if I am drunk, I still have a better grasp of English than you do.

But lets face facts, I'm not a sad 13 year old down the park like you would be with your mates if only your parents didn't make you be in before the street lights come on. And it's after 9:30, so you'd best just put on your Ronnie Rhino PJs and get to bed or you'll be grumpy in the morning

Psst, the club that dodged the tax HAVE been wound up. I know you're slow, but you can't be so slow that you're nearly a year behind the rest of us, can you?

oops kitchen fitter out of work again

If the special school dropout from Leeds would keep off this thread it might turn into something interesting.

Perversely. I'm really looking forward to the case coming to court. Whether or not it has any bearing on the future (if it has one) of the new company, I reckon it represents the best chance we will ever have of finding out what the hell went on. The fact that the RFL has tried to get most of the cases thrown out (and failed) suggests that they may have something to hide, or at least that they will be placed in some way at risk if the claims succeed.

League Express was apparently present at the hearing, let's hope they intend to attend the full hearing in January. If it's open to the public I'd be tempted to go along myself. I've been involved in loads of Employment Tribunals and usually they're quite dull, but I'd pay to watch this one.

I also wonder if the administrator will be giving evidence. In his public statements, he did seem to be irked by the fact his usual process of himself choosing the best offer for the creditors was interrupted by the RFL who effectively added a whole new set of criteria to the process.
I can see the RFL possibly being in a bit of trouble (this is like Senior's attempted claim on them re Crusaders), and possibly the players being added to the creditors list of the liquidated company, but the new company cannot have any liability on this. It's unprecedented. But that's us, Bradford Bulls, breaking new ground & pushing the boundaries of case law.....

If I recall right, the money withheld by the RFL from our funding was to repay Saints and other teams the money Green never sent for tickets the Bulls had sold.

I was under the impression there was something to do with fees for players loaned from the clubs owed too. Forget details though. Saints would be Lewis Charnock.

Either way I always wondered how this worked out - The money withheld from a new company with no links made no sense - if it was to pay creditors they were interfering with legal frameworks and making preferential payments to which the other creditors should have been able to make a claim?
They are in effect demanding a new company to be treat as the old under their terms which must have knock on effects whilst interfering with the liquidation etc.
if we had any money it would be interesting to see if the RFL were fair an just in what they requested demanded as conditions as a new company but in the sanctions they posed to a new company/organisation because RImmer i recall saying points deduction was decided entirely on the playing squad of old company being expected to stay which the new company did not A. legally have to take on, B - have the option. So treat as Old company, in terms of points, in terms of debts but id love to hear the HRMC's feelings on how this has circumnavigated the creditors processes whilst they argue about the former players "failure to comply with process"

The more you think about all of this mess, the RFL seem to be in it up to their necks!

I rue the day that Peter Hood ever got them involved in Odsal. I wonder if they rue the day as well?

An FOI request would be turned down as the act only applies for public authorities, a category which neither the Bulls or the RFL fall into.

I believe this case will more come down to the TUPE regulations and the transfer of labour from one company to another. I know the current club is a NewCo, but essentially I believe they could be claiming they should have been offered existing terms with said NewCo based on it being the same business, carrying out the same work, under the same guise... especially if the old Bradford Bulls had yet to be wound up (which I think only happened after the start of the season).

I'm not 100% up on all aspects of HR law, but i'm pretty sure that you cannot make a position redundant and then recruit someone else to that same role. This is where the claim may stem from.

Ok but Sidlow was the lead complainant and had he not left before new company was formed? thus he wouldn't be expected to be offered same terms etc. That would potentially rule it not to be part of new company in that sense?
I get your point for the likes of Chev and Chisholm who should have been tuped across but to me the release read more along the lines of claiming monies due as oppose to wrongful termination of contracts? I could be wrong but it seemed like they were claiming for wages unpaid - and it was targeted more to the old company.

That's a fair point and could be right.

Whatever the case, I'm with whoever said they hoped it got to court. I think whilst it could have implications for the club, it is also the single best opportunity to get to the bottom of the mess at the RFL... and potentially a huge change that is required.

Lets not forget, the RFL are the recipients of Sport England monies (public funding) so whilst they may not be obligated to respond to FOI requests, a scandal could force the governments hand to establish an independent enquiry similar to the one that has just taken place in cycling.

TUPE wouldn't be applicable because the NewCo did not take on the OldCo surely? They had to start from scratch so unless the RFL made a pigs ear out of it there should be no way to implicate NewCo...

But if they are guilty and end newco end up paying, surely newco can get this season's 12 point deduction removed.

This is gonna be a lot of fun!

No chance of that happening. The old company owed a hell of a lot of money to loads of different creditors. These guys wanting their redundancy/unpaid wages is merely only part of it.