Don't think there is a link so we'll let that go.

I doubt it; to make an unfair dismissal claim, the claimant has to be an employee. My understanding is that Ted wasn't employed by the club so there would be no claim he could make.

So you don't know? I see.

Yeah, although it's a pity we're giving an airing to more negative stuff about the club without some solid factual basis. As The Clan said:

As I didn't start the thread, that is why I said rumour, you see.

Can't we just blame Julian O'Neil or Mark Field like the good old days?

No, I dont see. His name isn't mentioned in the original post, so I'm intrigued as to why you'd drag him into the equation, without knowing the facts.

This is Pearman country, surely?

Nobody's names are mentioned as far as I can see, but you have not commented on anyone else's naming of names.
Ted may or may not be involved in this rumoured action against the club as could Diane, I ask again would that be the action of fan.
Surely it's time they just moved on?

Because the other names mentioned so far were known to be employees of the club, on the payroll, and therefore in the frame.

As far as I aware, a Director is still/can still, be an employee.

True, but that still doesn't get us any nearer the answer, does it?

No, and until anything is confirmed it remains a "rumour" and no one can be discounted.
If you read both of my posts, you will see I don't actualy acuse ted or anyone, I merely point out "if".

I have no reason to question who told me the same news and it just goes to show how bitter it can get.

I can tell you this, last year I was in touch with Diane Maskill with regards the prize for the Leon Walker predictions competition,
it took around three emails for the club to respond and honour their promise of the prize,
excuses as its the shops fault and its lost in the post just lead me to believe how sloppy things was run,
I even ask yorkshire one not to post it on here as it would give bad pr to the club, it took three months to sort out.

If an employer makes you redundant, they have to show that you were fairly selected for redundancy, and further that you were in fact made redundant.

Speaking hypothetically, let's say you are made redundant from working in a shop, but the reason for that is because of your connection to the old bosses, not because of some objective criteria, like last one, first out, or voluntary packages first, and then you find out that someone has got your old job, two things arise:
1. You haven't been made "redundant", because your old job has not ceased to exist, and:
2. Even if you have been made redundant, you have potentially been selected for redundancy on an unfair basis, because you have been selected because of who you are.

Alternatively, if your wage is cut unreasonably, regardless of whether your original wage was unreasonably high, then maybe there has been constructive dismissal.

I have no idea if any of this applies, but it shows how easy it is to fall foul of employment law. What employers can do, however, is decide that paying the compo is worth it to get rid.

Surely their gripe is with O'haras. They are the ones trying to recoup the money they believe was wrongfully paid to certain employees prior to the purchase by Spirit of 1873 and they are the ones who laid all the staff off. I don't profess to know the ins and outs of employment law, but surely there is no claim against the new owners for deciding not to remploy people who had been made redundant by the administrators.

If it does involve the Richardsons then it is disgusting to think that there are other people who will have suffered far more loss of income as a result of the old regimes demise then them, and who were not directly responsible for everything going tits up.

TUPE regulations (Transfer of Undertakings something or other). New owners take on the employment obligations of the old ones.

Thought Administration negated that?

But surely they would have to be employees at the time the club was purchased for those rights to exist, which wasn't the case here as I understand it. Givem the business was in administration at the time I can't see how those rights would exist.

surly it doesn't mean they should as take the dead wood as well if deemed to be of no use to the new employer

Not an employment lawyer, and so I am making educated guesses only here, but doesn't administration just involve the administrators running the old business and selling it to a new one. The TUPE regs protect employees, not other creditors, who had a relationship with the previous limited company, not the new one.

So employee rights would transfer to the new company, but not the debts. For instance, HMRC were owed money by the old company. It's got nothing to do with Spirit of 1873 Limited. But the TUPE regs protect employee rights, and ensure that they are transferred to the new one, otherwise employers could get out of their employment obligations by buying and selling the company every year.

Or something.

There has been a recent precedent set by an Employment Tribunal (Ms A.E Olds vs Late Editions Ltd) that TUPE regulations do indeed apply to businesses bought out of administration; that was previously held not to be the case.

The key issue could well be who made them redundant - O'Hara's or Spirit of 1873.

Just done a quick google and found this in an Insolvency Service Guide

"If you are dismissed in the course of a transfer of the business and the reason for the dismissal
is genuine redundancy, we can pay you a redundancy payment and a notice payment. However,
if the reason for the dismissal is the transfer itself, this is normally treated as unfair dismissal and
not redundancy. You may be able to claim compensation for unfair dismissal from the new owner.
You may have to apply to an employment tribunal to deal with any dispute. There are different
time limits for applying, but if you apply within 3 months of your dismissal, you should not be out
of time."

Reading this I interpret it as they may have a claim if they were dismissed as a condition of the purchase, but if a genuine redundancy all they would be entitled to would some form of payment from the Insolvency Service.

"TUPE will operate in the usual way to acquisitions of business out of administration, transferring to the acquirer both those employees who are “in scope” (and their accrued liabilities) and, potentially, claims from those dismissed pre-transfer."
- from the authority you have cited
"TUPE will apply as normal in relation to transactions out of administration including pre-packs. Purchasers of insolvent businesses need to factor in to their commercial considerations, negotiations and deal strategy the transfer of staff who are “in scope”, their accrued liabilities and, potentially, claims from those dismissed pre-transfer in circumstances where the administrator may well be unable and unwilling to indemnify the acquirer against the relevant liabilities adequately or at all"
- the analysis of the law firm who reported it and put it on the net. Spirit of 1873 Limited may well be liable.

Indeed - which could go to two possibilities:

1. your earlier point that they knew about it and were prepared to take the risk, deeming an award by the ET as an acceptable cost of getting rid.
2. they didn't know about it and have now been hit with ET claims from four individuals who, on the face of it, have a legitimate claim, even if the circumstances make it seem morally repugnant.

Time will tell I guess.