You'd assume so, but that just makes it worse, as obviously presenting 3 separate cases, and then presenting the defences of 3 seperate respondents, is going to take pretty much three times as long as it would just against us, and so probably double our representation costs at least. Great.

Agreed. I worry for the future of the game.
It is quite possible that the Catalans may be playing in the Championship next season. I would bet a few quid that the Union authorities are alive to that possibility and have contingency plans. When I visited Perpignan in the early years of Catalans it was a Union city. Perpignan RU were a top French team playing in the top league and European competitions. I'm sure the French Union will be prepared to invest in their game in that area and exploit any League failure.
Whilst the top administrators now receive remuneration packages previous regimes could only dream of , they have, for example, stripped the development departments of regional coaches.
. The Toronto owner has funded his enterprise without any help from the centre. In North America there are 100's of young athletes coming out of college every year who will not find a place on an NFL roster. Why not employ some RL coaches to tap into that market.
All your points about the NFL are valid. And a draft system is not unique to American Football or indeed American sports. Aussie Rules has a draft of young players ( based on similar principles of last picks first) which is not based on colleges/ educational establishments but on junior/ community clubs.

It could also boil down to which two respondents throw the other under the bus.

Does anyone (who maybe knows a bit about the legal stuff here) think that the players actually have a case against the new company?
And if so, why? AC said at the forum that the new club was not even formed until after the date of the liquidation.

Is that the date of the actual liquidation or the earlier time when we all thought the club had been liquidated, but it hadn't? Indeed, is that the whole reason why the new club is embroiled in this mess?

Does anyone know where or when the Employment Tribunals are being held?

AFAIK ET's are open to all members of the public, so we could just turn up and actually hear (something near) the truth?

Is the fact that the 12 pt deduction was against the old company and therefore how can the new company be penalised for a Company that has been liquidated ?

My understanding is that it cannot be held responsible for any debt or expenses of the Club (business) which was liquidated legally by the Administrator. If you read the administrators report (page 5) a better picture emerges and the RFL has much to explain?

I think the case will be heard in Leeds . The Tribunal courts are at City Exchange House on Albion Street - 5 minutes walk from the railway station.
It may be heard by a judge sitting on his/ her own or there may be a panel. That would be a judge and 2 lay members.
You are correct -most cases are open to the public. However any party can apply to the Judge to have the court " closed"to the public. The permissible reasons are pretty restricted.
I would imagine space will be tight. Four legal teams together with three respondents ( probably more than one person in each set) and the claimants( not all the 40 plus will be there) . And who knows how many witnesses will be listed to give evidence.

AS you say, the whole nub of the argument is that the 'new' company had the points deduction, were kept in the same league and had a funding deduction. These were the penalties that would have been given to the company had it been bought from the Administrator. Therefore the argument is that the new club is in fact the old club and is therefore liable. I liken the argument to buying a shop where the previous owners have gone bust. If you were to buy this shop you would not be expected to take up any of the debts of the previous owners even if the shop you open sells the same products that the old shop sold.

The difference being here though is the court case will be based on employment law and what legally can be done. The punishment handed down to new co was set by the RFL to keep everyone happy, hardly legally binding, just take it or leave it

But the employment tribunal will have to answer the question as to whether the current club are the old co or new co. That is why it is not just the new co that are going to the tribunal but also the RFL. The Administrator could also have input. It did seem that every option forwarded by the Administrator was rejected by the RFL. It could be seen that the RFL were steering the situation towards liquidation with a view to then being able to rip up existing contracts.

so if the employment tribunal rule we are in effect the old co after admin, not a new co after liquidation...do we get some points back?

This seems to be where the RFL have not answered the questions that have been asked all season namely "If this is in effect a new team how can you start them in the Championship with -12 points". It seems like an argument we have been dragged into through no fault of our own.

I'd suggest not.

It was the 'old co' which went into receivership and which was deducted the 12 points - we were stuck with the deduction after liquidation because the 'new co', ie ChaLow, accepted that condition on taking up a league place. I'd like to think questions might be asked of the RFL with, "no comment", not being an acceptable answer.

Questions need to be asked of the RFL and the new owner's as to why they would accept starting a new business with all those trade restrictions against them. Clarification from the Administrator may bring up some light to this subject. Let us hope so.

One word comes to mind

[size=150Skullduggery[/size

If there were no case to answer then it would just be a case of checking the relevant paperwork and it not getting anywhere near this far in regards to the new company. The fact that the RFL tried to get the case thrown out on a technicality kind of suggests that they are in it up to their eyeballs and it was already said that the court will not look favourably on them after what was basically described as a pretty low attempt. After this some of the pieces should start fitting in to the jigsaw although it will be the fans that are left to rep what someone else has sown once again.

So far as the "rugby penalties" are concerned, this seems pretty straightforward to me, and has nothing at all to do with issues around whether or not we are the same company (very 100% clearly, we'renot. That is in liquidation; and there is NO case to eb made that the new company is the same as the old, it's just not).

What happened was that the RFL said "If you want to join as a new member of the club AND PLAY AS BRADFORD BULLS THEN ANY team wanting to play as Bradford Bulls will be subject to the rugby penalties including the -12 points."

So, this is zero to do with "being" the old club, but a separate agreement between a new owner wanting RFL membership, and the conditions the RFL seek to impose if membership is to be granted.

I don't think the other option (start as a brand new club called something else, and begin in C1) was ever on the table)

As for the legal merits of the tribunal claims, as we haven't even seen what the stated legal claims are, it would be impossible to comment on them, and seems pretty pointless to speculate. All we know is that a legal case has been submitted making a connection between the money allegedly due to various employees of the old company, and the new company. The tribunal will need to rule if legally that connection sticks, or doesn't.

In general terms with employment claims, where some new business that looks like the old business carries on in business, you don't look so much at what labels the parties have stuck on the tins, it's what is actually in the tins. As i say, we can't comment on this case, but as to what happened before this case, around the time of our demise and rebirth, certainly I'm almost as clear as mud as to what actually happened and how, given the various announcements from the administrator, parties, RFL, the claim we'd been liquidated, then we hadn't quite, the "unauthorised" RFL discussions with buyers, player meetings with other proposed buyers, the RFL vetos/conditions, and all the other shenanigans and intrigue actually fit together.

Bradford Bulls, legal pioneers, testing the boundaries of case law since 2011!

Or not, as we're obviously a new & separate legal entity

I wouldn't be so confident if I were the new owners, some employee rights are protected when transferring employment from an insolvent business to a new one that is effectively the same business, taking over existing intellectual property rather than assets.

[iIf your employer is insolvent and their business is being transferred or taken over by another company, your employment rights might be protected, depending on the type of insolvency proceeding. There are some differences to the protections offered during a normal transfer.[/i

Employees are entitled to make claims of the new business for any shortfalls in monies owed, if the National Insurance fund doesn't cover all that's due.

[iIf your ‘transferring employer’ (the employer you were originally employed by) is going through insolvency proceedings, you might be owed money by your transferring employer. The responsibility to pay you the full amount of the money owed does not transfer with your employment contract to your new employer.

Your new employer is only responsible for the amount left after you have been paid from the National Insurance Fund. You should be able to make a claim for part of it through the National Insurance Fund for:

salary
holiday pay (for days taken but not paid)
You cant claim redundancy pay or notice pay as your job has not ended.[/i

Remember this is civil law, so it could go either way depending upon the day and whether the judge believes this was actually a transfer or takeover of an insolvent business, as it wasn't liquidated at the time that could well be the clincher.

Whilst it appears obvious that the oldco is culpable, I think the status of the oldco at the time and the negotiations going on separately held by the RFL muddies the waters enough to see it going the players way - if I were the new owners or RFL, I'd be making provision to settle for sure.

I wonder where Nige and Ralph put that money they took for rugby debts!!!

Back to the original topic of this thread - I simply won't be buying a season ticket until I see the type of squad we have assembled.

So the sooner the owners share their retained list of players for next year the better to get sales moving!

We have assembled half decent squads before only to go bust ,so waiting offers no guarantees...

Wonder if the banks will have anything to say if its proved that we were not liquidated. Did they refund fans season ticket money from the old co because they believed it was liquidated and had not and could not honour the season tickets, and it was now a new club. If it comes out that the RFL allowed the club to be fetched out of admin (which a 12 point deduction and staying in championship says could be the case) maybe,because I dont know the law, the banks refunded money when they did not have to as the same club still existed.
This court case could leave the RFL with a lot of questions to answer.

I wonder how something like this could be so badly handled, with negligible clarity and questionable practice. But then put the RFL into the equation and it doesnt surprise me at all.
Total shambles - they are not fit to be a governing body.