If he's only interested in his cash - this is the last thing I would have expected him to do

I don't think I have heard so many references to lawyers since good old Robert Maxwell's time - and we know who was the guilty party there, despite his little army of m'learned friends. But in the situation you mention above why sue someone who you cannot hope to recover anything from?

I'm off to buy a pair of those loafers that are made out of what looks like wicker and you wear without socks.

Pastelle coloured sweater over my shoulders with the sleeves tied in a knot at the front.

Question for FA...

If the case goes to the High Court - Does the hearing conclude in an open public court, where maybe the rafters could be filled with sports journalists waiting to type the claims made against the RFL in their next newspaper/magazine addition?

I am about to open a shop on eBay caterilng specifically for Bulls fans, specialising in bespoke hair shirts

Well as you know, I just make everything up,

but that said, every hearing in practically every case is public, whether in court or in chambers, anybody is free to go along and watch.

Interesting.

Up until this point, every hearing (even the 'independent' one) has been concluded without any details of our defense. So far the RFL have managed to brush all claims under the carpet, if this High Court case progresses, I get the feeling certain people at the RFL may be finding their CV's making sure they are up to date.

I never understood why Hudds let the Mason case go to court so all the dirty linen (Kopczak) could be aired in public. If there is anything in the Bulls allegations, then the RFL will be desperate to settle. What could they offer I wonder?

I don't think anyone will be playing at Park Avenue as the ground is overgrown and boarded up, [or do you mean joining with Park Avenue at Horsfall?

Whichever, I don't think either of those are really goers to be fair. Probably staying at Odsal for the foreseeable, I'd guess.

Couple of months rent?

Maybe it depends on whether you have a good name you wish to protect? Money, may be most things, but it isn't always everything.

It can't be sub judice until a case exists, i.e. a date is set for a hearing by the court.

It won't get that far as Green states he is "keeping options open"...I think this means, when Bulls become mathmatically down, any threat of action will drop.

Of course, if Bulls start picking up points...then it gets interesting.

This latest development by the owner is a disaster for supporters of the Bradford Bulls.

Financially motivated: gamble up to £50,000 with possibility of staying in Super League (a net gain in funding of about a million). A business decision worth going for - especially IF Club you own owes you money.

Guess case will be dropped as soon as it is clear that even 6 points points back wouldn't avert relegation. Expect it will be spun out with minimised costs until that point.

Even if it went the distance and the Bulls "won", I expect the outcome would NOT be 6 points back. More a case of the Court requiring a change in the RFL's FUTURE procedures so that it is In Future bound by precedent and, in particular, has to have a set points penalty for going into Administration and with a set scale of reduced points deduction based on the % owing to creditors repaid from the sum paid to the Administrator to acquire the business.

Either way, this snookers the Bulls as it inhibits planning/ signings for 2015 whilst doing nothing for them ending up in the Championship for 2015.

Indeed, things could be even worse IF the Club owes the owner anything and IF HE WOULD INTEND TO GET IT BACK OUT OF THE PARACHUTE PAYMENT.

Absolutely not, the RFL is not some sort of public body, the Court will have zero interest in how it conducts its affairs or frames its rules in the future. You don't understand the nature of a civil case. A person sues another, claiming some civil wrong and seeking some civil remedy. That's it. If the dispute is based on rules, then that part will be about what the rules mean, and whether they have been correctly applied.

In this instance, the scope may be very limited. I don't of course know, as we haven't been told and no details made public, but as the Independent Panel refused to hear the appeal, then on the face of it, the High Court might simply be asked to consider the validity of that refusal; if the Bulls win, the logical outcome would be to simply order the Independent Panel to proceed to hear the Bulls' appeal.


Not sure what that even means. Seems to make no sense, and I don't see the connection.

That was dealt with in the RFL Policy Review and was part of the changes voted in by the clubs alongside the new league structure. I believe it is due to come into force from the start of next season.....

[i5.3.15 The current maximum sporting sanction, following an Insolvency Event, of 6 Super League/9 Championship points should be increased to a mandatory 12 Super League/18 Championship points. Board discretion to reduce this penalty on application from a club will be removed.[/i

... so not only can't the court order them to do it, but they've already done it!

I posted this on the VT:

When SL was created, Keighley threatened court action against Rfl for not giving them the promotion they won fair and square.

I'm not sure about my facts here, but the Rfl banned/suspended them from playing (they dragged some clause out of the rule book) for the duration of the case. As keighley simply could not afford not to play they had to withdraw their action.

This will be interesting and could get dirty.

I'm sure Green thinks he has a case or why do it?

It is in the rules that the RFL can if asked advise what they would do if a club suffered an insolvency event. When Carter asked them I would imagine the conversation would have gone along hthe lines of: on the basis of precedent, 6 points deduction and funding deduction of £1.2m in the year as its the last year of this Sky deal, which in effect means relegation to the Championship for you.

I can't remember the details, but wasn't there a case a few years back when a football team was not relegated because they had an ongoing legal case against a points deduction? They could not be relegated as the points may be given back? Or have I just made that up?

Are you perhaps thinking of the Sheffield United case where they were relegated and West Ham stayed up at their expense and it transpired that WH had been fielding an unregistered player (Tevez IIRC). Sheffield United took it the courts and although the courts found partially in their favour they were still relegated. IIRC West Ham were ordered to pay substantial compensation to Sheffield United from their share of the Premier League shareout.

2 things spring to mind for me:

Firstly, when lawyers say they are "100% confident of winning" I would be very worried bearing in mind that they stand to make a lot of money, win or lose.

Secondly, p**s the RFL off enough and they just might not let you play at "their" ground any more. (unlikely, I know)

Meanwhile in other news, the Uruguayan FA have announced they are to appeal Suarez's ban. The effect of this seems likely to be he can keep playing in the World Cup. But I'm sure the two things are unconnected.

Funny job, this appealing lark.

If the appeal does go ahead and say the courts find in Bradfords favor would there then be the question of compensation. Because the points were deducted MG would argue that is the reason for being relegated(loss of key players, being is special measures etc). I wonder how much that would amount to. Not being in super league, loss of gate receipts, sky monies,merchandising etc.
I don't think we would be re-instated to super league but a decent amount of compensation would be due.

Blake Solly was asked re how many overseas players were on the quota for SL2 and he stated five.