I don't think you area million miles away. Having dealt with a number of claims cases in my day job I've seen far too many cases involve my employers on the basis that it creates uncertainty, even if not credible... uncertainty for individuals and as a collective group.

In this case, I think the main targets are the RFL and the administrators. That is where the big money lays and is largely based around the conclusion that both parties had involvement in sinking perfectly legitimate and acceptable bids (one from the administartors point of view and one from the RFL fit and proper ruling).

The "beneficiaries" of the ruling were Cha-Lo (if you could say acquiring a shell of a club a benefit) and will have been thrown into the mix to add doubt to the case.

If Cha-Lo had accepted and settled fearing a big sum awarded by the court then it leaves the RFL and Petitt in a weak and vulnerable position. As it happens, Petitt seems to have folded early which now leaves the RFL vulnerable and I'd imagine they too will settle.

This should leave the new club free and clear, unless some of the group get greedy and hold out for the full whammy.

I have no doubt this would serve no great purpose being a cash strapped club and would those involved in the claim want their names attached as the people who finally sunk a once great club, especially when some of them are reliant on them for their current employment? Not a chance I would suggest.

This has been in the making ever since the old club went bust. Had they gone to the Insolvency Service to claim redundancy they would have already been paid out by now (most of the club staff did follow this route). However, those who haven't took the gamble on offer and it seems to be paying off. In return they will get a bigger payout.

Think this is still going ahead. Hopefully there'll be a last minute settlement.

not sure where I saw it but seem to remember 25th or 27th january as being hearing date

Next Tuesday i believe. Hopefully get it out of the way relatively unscathed (or just survive) and we can all look forward.

Fully expecting the claimants to win their cases, it's just how it will affect the club in its current state that I have no idea about.

Same here Nothus.

My biggest hope is that some facts come out of it. I get the feeling there's a lot has gone on behind closed doors that I'd love to see out in the open, which they wouldn't avoid if there was a court case. Don't want it to destroy the club or anything like that, but it would be nice to get some of those skeletons out of the closet.

I'm all for a bit of transparency but not if it means Admin 4.

I'm still slightly bemused as to how the 'new' ChaLow Bulls are involved in this.

And I'm also slightly afraid that we could be thrown under a bus (so to speak) by certain organisations with something to hide, and something to lose.

That concerns me too but I would expect Cramer to be pursuing those who are most likely to be able to pay up, i.e. not us.

Friend of mine has a theory, but it's based on a lot of conjecture (i.e. trying to guess the rest of the jigsaw when we only really have the edge pieces). His theory certainly sounds plausible though and is effectively based around the current owners finding it more beneficial to start a new club rather than take over the old one, and engineering that scenario along with the other parties being sued. I stress though, total theory, no fact, no accusation here.

Well it would be debt free for a start rather than a tarnished holding company. I just think the fact we were punished for the 'old clubs' misdemeanors and in all but holding company name to the naked eye we are the same club. Its very plausible what you have said I would imagine. Also the fact that Pettitts lot settled they didnt want their side airing in public either

Quote ="HamsterChops"Friend of mine has a theory, but it's based on a lot of conjecture (i.e. trying to guess the rest of the jigsaw when we only really have the edge pieces). His theory certainly sounds plausible though and is effectively based around the current owners finding it more beneficial to start a new club rather than take over the old one, and engineering that scenario along with the other parties being sued. I stress though, total theory, no fact, no accusation here.'" How could you prove that though? Chalmers made an offer and it was rejected by the administrator/creditors. If Green was the chairman again i could understand. Only thing i thing i am taking as a smidgen of reassurance is there are a number of claimants who are currently on the playing roster. Whether Chalmers thinks the case has merit or not, if we lose and we don't have the funds to pay the claimants, surely he's advised those players of this. They're not exactly going to persue the claim if there is a possibility of them being unemployed. Richard Cramer would also advise of this. Is it the same Richard Cramer who owns agency elite star management along with Karl Harrison (see bottom of page in link below) elitestar.co.uk/ If it is, he represents Liam Kirk, Vila Halafihi, Lee Smith and Ethan Ryan i believe. He'll know the sums involved and whether we can pay it. He wouldn't advise his clients to sign with us if he thought the payout by the club would make them unemployed.

Quote ="HamsterChops"Friend of mine has a theory, but it's based on a lot of conjecture (i.e. trying to guess the rest of the jigsaw when we only really have the edge pieces). His theory certainly sounds plausible though and is effectively based around the current owners finding it more beneficial to start a new club rather than take over the old one, and engineering that scenario along with the other parties being sued. I stress though, total theory, no fact, no accusation here.'" How could you prove that though? Chalmers made an offer and it was rejected by the administrator/creditors. If Green was the chairman again i could understand. Only thing i thing i am taking as a smidgen of reassurance is there are a number of claimants who are currently on the playing roster. Whether Chalmers thinks the case has merit or not, if we lose and we don't have the funds to pay the claimants, surely he's advised those players of this. They're not exactly going to persue the claim if there is a possibility of them being unemployed. Richard Cramer would also advise of this. Is it the same Richard Cramer who owns agency elite star management along with Karl Harrison (see bottom of page in link below) elitestar.co.uk/ If it is, he represents Liam Kirk, Vila Halafihi, Lee Smith and Ethan Ryan i believe. He'll know the sums involved and whether we can pay it. He wouldn't advise his clients to sign with us if he thought the payout by the club would make them unemployed.

My own conjecture is that maybe they were just innocent victims. Cha-Low being pawns, caught in middle and being browbeaten by the RFL on one side, looking after the interests of the game and the administrator, looking to get as much cash as he could, the on the other. My main worry is that in order to get the playing registration they, perhaps, 'connived' with the RFL in "something" which technically was a bit borderline.

Against all that is the fact that they had no known previous connection with Bradford or the club - so why would they get involved with anything "complicated"? It's not as though they were, say me (or most on here, perhaps), with a life long passion for them club, who might have felt it OK to 'push the boundaries' a little. So why would they, why did they not just walk away?

I think my head is hurting - time to lie down in a darkened room.

Is Green in the gang of 4 being pursued?

Chal-Lo were accepted by the RFL and Admin weren't they? Only for Green to subsequently reject it when he thought a better offer was on the table but which never actually materialised?

If he hadn't then they'd have been TUPE'd and the world would have carried on? Maybe there's grounds to go after him for lost wages given the RFL/Admin recommendation finally came about anyway?

I might be wrong here but I think their claim against the old co has been settled already.

The liquidators have settled. I would think they effectively were the old co.

Don't think Green is owt to do with this. It's all about avoidance of TUPE.

Thats the thing, but didn't Pettit make everybody redundant? Wouldn't that clear the need for TUPE if the players were clubless

Also apart from Chisholm, pretty muchh all the squad was signed up by Chalmers.

Did he? If so when? Do you know that for sure? If it was that simple why would there even be a case?

Even if he did if a new club suddenly pops up with the same stadium, same training centre, same (some of the) staff, etc. The RFL also insisted that any Newco must suffer a points deduction, reduction in central funding and pay off some "rugby debts" of the old club and comply with all sorts of conditions (MUST PLAY AT ODSAL) that could only ever apply to a continuing operation. No way would any totally new entrant be so penalised or constrained. Newco then re-hire the players to then play in the same kit under the same name. It looks to me like avoidance of TUPE to me at the very least. Cramer undoubtedly has a case.

Otherwise why would the RFL have had a top barrister try and get most of the claims dismissed on a technicality (absurdly, as the judge ruled) if they weren't genuinely concerned?

to save even more legal costs, Bullseye. Tupe 8(7) applies as follows: https://www.businessrescueexpert.co.uk/ ... nsolvency/ So you can even buy oldco assets - eg the name - and avoid TUPE. So I would guess any case revolves around how the insolvency became terminal, that strange last minute no-offer-good-enough scenario that resulted in liquidation, or was said to result. I am not a conspiracy theorist but this could start me on that slippery slope to positively persistent nay perpetual paraonoia.

to save even more legal costs, Bullseye. Tupe 8(7) applies as follows: https://www.businessrescueexpert.co.uk/ ... nsolvency/ So you can even buy oldco assets - eg the name - and avoid TUPE. So I would guess any case revolves around how the insolvency became terminal, that strange last minute no-offer-good-enough scenario that resulted in liquidation, or was said to result. I am not a conspiracy theorist but this could start me on that slippery slope to positively persistent nay perpetual paraonoia.

I am no TUPE expert, but my unease about it is not because of the business being reborn under the same name etc., that happens all the time, in various ways, it is the muddy waters of the question of whether the old company did or did not go into liquidation before the new owners acquired what they acquired. It was reported that the old company had been liquidated but that seemed to me far too speedy as these things take time. If they'd waited till it was liquidated then we'd probably have been bullet proof. But might also have missed the first part of the season.

If the old company had still not been actually liquidated, though, then I suspect that may be one of the likely central difficulties.

One hymn sheet, two choristers, though I do have occasional problems harmonising my basso profundo with your counter-tenor, FA

Think you may be onto something there.