Really hope it gets sorted so we can just look forward to the new season with nothing hanging over us for once

You know it won't.

Whether the whole saga was conspiracy or cock up will all come out at Tribunal. I guess we'll see how much the RFL is prepared to risk that.

In regards to this, if I remember correctly wasn't there a new 'Bradford Northern' announced with ALL the players TUPEd over? They announced it before getting RFL permission. I vaguely remember looking at their initial website....

This was, of course, until the RFL decided that they were not the preferred owners and euthanised it.

However, if the players were TUPEd over, and then the RFL killed that off wouldn't the RFL have a responsibility to these players, as they have technically made them redundant once again?

Another post by Adey...
[i
IIRC, the claim is by 40-plus former employess - players and staff - of Bulls 3.0 (Bradford Bulls Northern Ltd) which entered Administration 14/11/16 and which entered Winding-Up ("Liquidation"icon_wink.gif on 3/2/17.

Incidentally, ignore totally any references to "liquidation" starting early January 2017. Although most folk think it did from the variious statements and reports at the time, It did not!  All those statements effectively said at the time was that the company would now be liquidated. As usual, a combination of ambiguous (for whatever reason, innocent or disingenuous) public statements and the media not really having a clue about how insolvency works led people to believe liquidation happened at the start of January.  Again, it did not.

I labour this point partly because the continued inaccuracy winds the financial pedant in me up, but also because the timing MAY be relevant (I speculate, really do not know!). Liquidation automatically terminates all employment contracts.  Administration does NOT.  This may or (probably) may not be relevant, but I flag it up for completeness if nothing else.

The other defendants are the RFL, and Bradford Bulls Northern Ltd (Bulls 3.0).

Why are Bulls 4.0 enjoined in the claim? I can only assume that it is because the claimants allege the TUPE rules should have applied when Bulls 4.0 took on staff?  i.e. that there was effectively a continuation of the business, and therefore employment?  And that, therefore, Bulls 4.0 are deemed to have acquired all the accrued employment entitlements of all those Bulls 3.0 staff who were still employed by Bulls 3.0 (in Administration) at the time the Administrators closed the business at the start of January (and maybe even some of those made redundant before then, if any?).  And that, therefore, Bulls 4.0 will be reponsible for settling the redundancy claims and also the claims of re-engaged staff? 

And why is the RFL involved?  Well there is the 64k dollar question?  It can surely only be because the claimants allege that the RFL was somehow party to it all, in an employment capacity? I can't see how else the claimants could have a claim against the RFL?

Now we know, or have deduced, that the Administrators looked to have had an offer or at least clear intent from Bradford Bulls Capital Ltd - Thorne's newly-formed vehicle at the start of January, pretty well immediately after the Administrators announced the closure of the business (NOT into liquidation at that point).  Certainly, folk were convening meetings at Odsal with staff saying they would be taking over, and seemingly offering contracts from what was reported at the time? But then the RFL stepped in, and effectively vetoed whatever was happening, and imposed their own requirements and timings.  The Administrators described those actions by the RFL as being "unauthorised" - by which I presume they meant by them - and the net result was the undertaking was sold not to Thorne (or anyone else) but to Bulls 4.0, owned (so the records say) by Chalmers and Lowe.

One assumes that the RFL's involvement in this process, and in effectively selecting the new owners, must be a/the reason why they have been enjoined in the claim?  Unless, of course, there is yet more to the whole debacle of a process that we are not (yet?) aware of? It would not surprise me one bit - given there has been loads previously over the history of the Bulls' serial insolvencies that seems never to have seen daylight -  but who the *** knows??  Certainly not me.

And, since I have limited confidence in the RFL's competance in matters legal, who knows maybe they screwed something up inadvertantly by not doing things properly? 

Bulls 4.0 attributed the dramatic downturn in performances during the season, at least in part,  to when this claim was launched, since it involved a number players who were party to the claim. I guess only the players and those very close to them will know if there was any truth in that?

I have no idea what the outcome of all this will be, not least because I have no real idea of the basis and particulars of the claim. I guess any OOC settlement (today or otherwise) will mean some of the true facts never become public?  I just hope it IS settled today, since the ongoing major uncertainty cannot be doing anyone any favours.[/i

 

 

That's what I said, however much less eloquently



I also wonder if the RFL withdrawing funding to pay off 'Rugby debts' further muddies the water. Why some but not others.

On the one hand Id like this to go tribunal so we can have some facts forced out of people about the disgraceful goings on at our club/the rfl/the administrator/etc last year, but on the other hand, if that were to happen I'm not convinced our new club will emerge intact.

Id still like to know exactly how the potential owners with seemingly the least money but probably better connections beat other potential owners with more money and less connections in the right places.......or have I just answered my own question there?

Also, I now truly feel like its a proper Bulls offseason- reading posts by Adey on shady dealings, employment law and legal trouble for the Bulls! It almost feels like Christmas is coming....

If reports at the time are to be believed, weren't the other bids conditional upon being able to buy back the lease on the stadium, or something to that effect? And the RFL were reluctant to let that happen.

Well, I see that Ryanair are advertising their flights on TV again, at the same time as admitting that there will be more, as yet unspecific, cancellations. So I guess the Bulls selling season tickets is pretty much in the same category.

Well lets hope we don't end up like Monarch!

...Winter is coming......

The night is dark and full of terrors...

The RFL have done very well out of ensuring that the lease for Odsal remained in their ownership. They stipulated that discussions about owning the lease were not possible when people were asked to "bid", thus scuppering anyone other than Cha-Lo. It certainly scuppered the Thorne bid. Their bid being one that was rumoured to have offered to TUPE all the staff and players across into their new company.

I don't think they all did;

[url=http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/bradford-bulls/fans-would-have-pivotal-role-in-one-of-four-bradford-rl-bids-1-8325623Lamb/Irvine bid 9th Jan2017[/url

[i"We’ve provided proof of funding, have set out a three-year plan and can provide guarantees. Now we’ll see how it compares with the other bids. We’re not property developers; we’re not interested in buying Odsal. We’re wanting to establish a rugby league club that has longevity. Rather than having a boom and bust period, with our financial model we don’t feel like we are over-expecting and believe this is sustainable."[/i

We can only take direct quotes like that on face value, so 1 of the 4 final bids said they didn't want Odsal.

Also worth noting that Chalmers original bid to get us out of admin did involve discussions over the stadium with the RFL, which put him as preferred bidder by the RFL, only to have it knocked back by the administrator;

[url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/bradford-bulls-future-still-doubt-9533602Chalmers preferred bid rejected by administrator 29th Dec 2016[/url

[iThe previous preferred party - a consortium including New Zealander Andrew Chalmers - had their bid for the Championship club rejected by administrators. That was despite having been backed by the RFL following lengthy talks over Bradford’s Odsal home, the leasehold of which is owned by the sport’s governing body.[/i



It really was a tangled web, but luckily for the RFL they still ended up with their preferred bidder in charge of newco after the oldco was shut down in Jan....how lucky was that?

One thing which has been a thorn in our side for several years now has been the "helping hand" of the RFL. To paraphrase Kevin Keegan, I would love it, just love it, if somebody beats them.

From my perspective, as the new season loomed, the RFL dithered and prevaricated, and set in stone conditions for any new club, not caring a jot that by blocking the normal process of administration in this way, any new club would be almost strangled at birth, as kickoff approached.

Now, the RFL admitting any new entrant to the party is entirely a matter for them. As are any T&Cs attached. None of that (in my view) is relevant to the tribunal case, as it is simply a case of whether a new party wanting to play a team in the RFL's comps., is or is not given a licence.

But at the same time, this process severely interfered with the administration, because normally, it would be the administrator who weighed up buyers, and did a deal with the most favourable.

You can't of course escape the fact that, if I'm wanting to buy my way in to play a RL team in the leagues, I need to be accepted by the RFL before I'm gonna pay my money. Or make my purchase strictly conditional on that happening. To that extent, so far, the condition is reasonable. The administrator can't say who the RFL must admit, and the RFL can't tell the administrator how to do his job.

But this refers to what we all used to call the"fit and proper person test", basically the RFL have a (rightful) veto against the true "owner" or "main man" and have no legal obligation to accept anybody as owner. Crucially, it isn't going further, and interfering directly in the future running of the business that the new owner would be operating.

Here, things seem to have gone much beyond that, here, the RFL seem to have basically told the new owners that they could play as Bradford Bulls, they would have to play in the Championship, they would start at minus 12 points, they would have to play at Odsal and take over the sub-lease of Odsal and pay rent to the RFL, etc.

In other words, the RFL were engineering the situation in which "Bradford Bulls" would remain a team in the Championship and play under that name and in the same league and in the same place as the old one.

I guess that the legal effect of the extent of this involvement is what is at the heart of the case.

What should have happened in my opinion is
a) administrator picks the best bid
b) prospective new owner passes fit and proper test
c) the new team starts in C1

I assume that had this happened, there would have been a TUPE situation and indeed how much better that would have been for us as a club rather than everybody being sacked.

Instead, we don't really know exactly what did happen, but we do know that the administrator was very unhappy at the RFL's "unauthorised" involvement, and we do know now that, contrary to the impression widely given, the old club was not actually in liquidation; we do know that the business was not bought out of administration from the administrator; but that many of its assets were bought and sold by the RFL (not including staff contracts). We do know that ChaLo negotiated new deals with each member of staff, starting from scratch, so if nothing else changes then all their accrued employment terms and rights would be gone. Yet you're still playing for Bradford Bulls in the same shirt, at the same place, even in the same league, as you were before.

What the Tribunal will make of that merry mess, only they will know, but by getting so heavily involved and interfering directly in the administration process, the RFL have only themselves to blame if a legal case can be made holding them to account for the effect their involvement had on the employment situation of the individuals concerned which, let's not forget, is what the case is all about. The effect of what happened seems to have been to take what happened to the former employees completely out of the remit of the administrator, even though the old business remained in administration, and TUPE was enacted to put a stop to people avoiding workers' rights by paper manoeuvrings.

Why would Cramer pursue a club with no money? Surely the only way he and the claimants get anything is if the RFL are held accountable? Does this mean the current owners have less to worry about?

Would be a dull winter if we didn't have the prospect of a 500 page thread full of speculation and no substance to look forward to...

I think you are trivialising the effort that went into that!

Too many words!

Could someone synopsise for me please?

In short, are we liable or not?
And will the RFL finally get what’s due to them?

We don't know.

I back the RFL. After all they did say we were OK to sign Iestyn Harris.

And everyone knows how that went.

Whether we are liable will be decided by the courts.
Will the RFL get theirs? Not a hope in Hell. The worst saying ever invented was 'What goes around comes around'. Don't you believe it.

Maybe so, but if it does all come out in the wash that the RFL are culpable of 'engineering the situation' to better suit them rather than the players/club/supporters then there is going to be almighty stink.

Lets also not forget that one of the claims has been set against the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Now thats the sort of thing that makes headlines if something HAS gone awry.

Can't help but think that the people named in the claim more or less ensure an out of court settlement. Perhaps if Koukash does buy us he should change the name to Bradford Cynics.

Bradford (Tax) Dodgers?