Re: Tribunal Case : Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:44 am  

Bullseye wrote:

I see in the League Express someone asked Chalmers why, if the case is "without merit" the club are seeking to come to a settlement.

"Settlement is a practical process, given how there isn't one party or respondent - there are four."

"There's the claimant group then four respondents, so the practical considerations that would involve a long process with 47 claimants, seven days in court and lots of lawyers involved means that perspective needs to be brought into reality."

Anyone able to de-cipher this cobblers?

I guess he means that reaching a settlement would be cheaper than going to court and proving their point?

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:01 am  

Thanks Nothus.

I guess that's their spin anyway. Part of me wants it to go to court to see how Rimmer's "moral compass" holds up. The other part wants it all to go away.

[Bulliac]

Re: Tribunal Case : Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:06 am  

It can't be simple, that is for sure. With 47 claimants (maybe some with their own lawyers) and four groups being sued (each being separately represented?) it seems mired in complexity, and therefore cost, from the start.

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:09 am  

The lawyers will certainly spin it out as long as possible before settling if at all. If it goes to tribunal and they win they'll get all their costs paid.

Whether it's a fear of the mounting costs or the result of a tribunal it looks like the lawyers for the claimants are in the driving seat to me.

Re: Tribunal Case : Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:17 am  

Bullseye wrote:

I see in the League Express someone asked Chalmers why, if the case is "without merit" the club are seeking to come to a settlement.

"Settlement is a practical process, given how there isn't one party or respondent - there are four."

"There's the claimant group then four respondents, so the practical considerations that would involve a long process with 47 claimants, seven days in court and lots of lawyers involved means that perspective needs to be brought into reality."

Anyone able to de-cipher this cobblers?

I'd expect one stumbling block to any settlement will be agreeing who pays what into the pot.

IF the owners of the 'new' business took specialist legal advice (as they should) before buying/taking over/setting up the 'new' business they may have some comeback against that 'poor/wrong' advice if they end up with a hefty payout bill. IF they didn't take any advice (or possibly advice from a non-specialised source) then more fool them. The old 'caveat emptor' applies here, and, IF the whole 'new club' saga was all part of a master plan then it would be even more important to check out the fine details, especially if the plan wasn't yours.......

[Bulliac]

Re: Tribunal Case : Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:22 am  

Well, let's hope it doesn't take the same route as Peter Hood's 'membership scheme', which meant a large saving on VAT except it didn't..

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:49 am  

Bulliac wrote:

Well, let's hope it doesn't take the same route as Peter Hood's 'membership scheme', which meant a large saving on VAT except it didn't..

I still despair of the thinking behind that one.

Mr Dog makes some important points. I'm sure these won't be lost on the current owners and the RFL now, I'd suggest they wish they'd considered them 9-10 months ago. Can see it costing quite a bit to settle. If the claim is in the region of £1.2m then you add all the costs it could be an eye-watering settlement.

Best get those season tickets on credit card if you're wanting one before the case begins.

[Bulliac]

Re: Tribunal Case : Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:06 pm  

To be fair, the idea was probably fine, but the implementation was far from fine and was let down by someone who didn't look into it properly and take appropriate advice. If you're going to have a 'membership scheme' then set it up legally and in a watertight manner and not in some halfarsed, 'it'll be reight' way.

Re: Tribunal Case : Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:06 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

...

Best get those season tickets on credit card if you're wanting one before the case begins.

But do we know what the Bulls credit card arrangements are?

The latest wheeze is that if third parties are used such as Sage Pay or Skrill etc, then you are not necessarily covered, and there is no way of finding out either. the catch is, if a retailer uses a third party to take the payments, if they don't port that money straight through to the retailer (eg account to them periodically) then the credit card companies are successfully arguing that they are not a party to a relevant debtor-creditor-supplier agreement and escaping liability

Re: Tribunal Case : Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:35 pm  

Mr Dog wrote:

I'd expect one stumbling block to any settlement will be agreeing who pays what into the pot.

IF the owners of the 'new' business took specialist legal advice (as they should) before buying/taking over/setting up the 'new' business they may have some comeback against that 'poor/wrong' advice if they end up with a hefty payout bill. IF they didn't take any advice (or possibly advice from a non-specialised source) then more fool them. The old 'caveat emptor' applies here, and, IF the whole 'new club' saga was all part of a master plan then it would be even more important to check out the fine details, especially if the plan wasn't yours.......

Apparently they took advice from the RFL. They heard they were a professional body. At least that's what it said on the toilet wall. "For professional advice call Red Hall and ask for Ralph".