This will no doubt get the usual "show me a link" treatment but believe this or not it's up to you.

I have it on rock solid authority that a number of ex Wildcats employees, probably 4 of them, are taking an unfair dismissal case to an employment tribunal in an attempt to squeeze money out of the new owners company, Spirit of 1873 Ltd.

The club will fight it all the way and have no intention at all of paying a single penny to any of them.

From the same source, I've been told that Diane Maskill has been banned from attending Wakefield games and is not allowed to enter the stadium at any time.

Interesting development.

Wrong board mate, its the vt you need to put this on, address it to ceebeejames, he/she will do the rest

Heard a similar story myself - shocking behaviour from the Richardsons if true.

Fully behind the club in fighting this all the way, I just hope that we did things in the right manner.

I await Vatman to come on and back up the Richardsons so far that he Ted will have to go to Pinderfields to have Vastman's head dislodged from his back passage.

What, I'm going to be there at court to back AG and the club , Richardsons get a life, let it go....

It's so easy for any company to fall foul when the transfer of employere in concerned. Happened to me last year and I didn't even know I had a case...that's lawyers for you.

Hardly going to help their image if true

What a petty small minded fool your post shows you to be

Surely this is down to the Administrators rather than the new owners?

I can't quite remember whether the staff were made redundant under O'Hara's or Spirit of 1873 ltd, if it was O'Hara's then surely no one can bring a case against So83.

Even if it was So83, surely the company employment contracts became null and void and was'nt that one of the reasons the old company went into Admin so as to negate employees rights under TUPE legislation?

Either way, its another negative non Rugby story that the club does'nt need right now.

Tit for tat with respect to the apparent legal case perusing a £44K payment made to specific staff members early this year (as per the administration report)?

That's how I recall it. A large number were dismissed by O'Hara's, then the majority re-employed by Spirit of 1873 Ltd.

Maybe something dodgy happened at that point. I do know from experience unemployment law is now very tight and any procedures not followed would be ceased upon.

If the club is in the wrong and I hope they are not involved then I fully support anyone with a genuine case getting what is rightly theirs no matter what their DNA. I have no worries in upsetting fools like Altofts wildcat because for me the Law of the land is far more important than the needs of any Rugby League Club. That should be an end of for any decent human being and nothing to do with backsides.

Let's hope this is nothing for all concerned.

I have to agree with you Vastman. It is a big if of course as we don't know whether they are just trying it on but if they have been mistreated they deserve their day in court. I can't imagine Diane walking into a similar role anywhere else so it will be important to her.
Saying that, I agree with Clan as well that I can't see why they think they do have a case.

Me neither but Franny lost his job and may have a case...who knows.

In one. We've got it and you can't have it back !! The payments were obviously made during the period that the club announced it was going into administration and it being ratified in court a week or so later. No payments are legally allowed during that period.

Personally I would let them in, on the proviso one of them brings the deeds to B.V back.

I was under the impression that Franny Stephenson declined the offer of a job under the new regime. If that is the case I don't see how he would have a case, as for the Richardson / Maskill's if they were listed as directors or board members then surely they would be limited to any action they could take.

The Richardsons trying it on, whatever next

It must have been a difficult post for you to compose, 12 little words and you still had to edit it

As much as vastman's rant about the righting of wrongs and people who have been badly treated deserving their day in court may feel like natural justice, in my experience, employment law is far from that eutopian state; just about anyone who loses their job or even leaves of their own accord thesedays can, if they're that way inclined, bring a claim to the Employment Tribunal and more often than not, those claims are accepted by the Tribunal and have to be dealt with, spurious or otherwise.

Defending an ET claim is a costly, stressful and extremely onerous task for any employer, particularly small to medium companies or sole traders who almost certainly won't have the expertise in-house, and there's a whole industry of 'employment advisors' and similar odious legal types who know that and will represent these claimants on a no win no fee basis, knowing full well that most employers will offer to pay something due to the nuisance value, even if they know they haven't done anything wrong. Many people say they want to fight the claim 'on principle', until they realise that having principles costs a serious amount of cash.

In short - if you were a Richardson clan member and you went to an 'employent advisor' and told them what had happened during and after the takeover, they'd be filling out an ET1 before you could blink; whether the claims have any merit remains to be seen, but you can bet your backside that defending them will be a massive distraction from the business in hand. This mind you, from the people who said not so long ago that everything they'd ever done had been in the best interests of Wakefield Trinity.

In my work experience,it's supriseing how many get rewarded for failure.

[size=150YAWN[/size whatever - patronising - self serving - Tory - bore



B*llocks, you mean it stops greedy employers (99%) exploiting their employees - disgusting attitude.

For Little Waynes benefit my computers knackered hence the edits.

ha ha ha hilarious - no really - you are a very funny guy.

Stop it vasty, you can do better than that - last week you were the lord of the manor, talking down to the lower classes, this week you're a militant prole, defending the rights of the oppressed working man!

Unlike your good self, I'm actually speaking from experience, rather than just spouting the opposite of what other people say and passing it of as my opinion.

The problem with most issues of this nature these days is that whenever the lawmakers try to make the filing of claims more open and accessible for genuine claimants, they also open the door to the dishonest ones. As you've stated, depending on the size of the claim, it's often better for an employer to concede, rather than contest. Sadly, the genuine claimants and the dishonest ones get lumped together as far as public perception of the matter is concerned. Without full possession of the facts, though, it would be wrong for anyone here to assume any claim by former employees is dishonest or otherwise, until all the facts are known.

Quite how that equates to being a Tory only you can figure.

FWIW I agree with Bren2k.From first hand experience of watching a complete tool cost my company thousands whilst employing her and then having the cheek to claim unfair dismissal even after the due process had been followed.
The no win no fee vultures were happy to pursue though.Thankfully at tribunal it was thrown out.Personally i think it indicates more about the" compensation culture" we now live with.

Would those greedy employers be similar to the greedy employers that spent money they didnt have whilst running our club into the ground.

Would those greedy employers be the same ones that on numerous occasions that couldnt pay their employees on time.

Would those greedy employers be the same ones that rather than stick their hands in their pockets,begged for supporters to bail them out.

Oh,my heart bleeds for Ted and his merry band,whilst he contemplates proceedings from the comfort of his villa in Cyprus others have had to write off thousands.