Re: Tribunal Case : Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:42 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Surely the motivation for bringing the case is to get money that is thought to be owed?

If that’s right then why would anyone sue a club with no money? If some of the claimants are still Bulls players or employees it seems a counterproductive thing to do since their success in the claim would also mean they’d most likely be out of a job.

But the fact is that we have been sued, so someone must think there's an advantage, tactical or whatever, to that

Bullseye wrote:

I think the real target has to be the RFL. They’re the ones with the money and they had a prominent role in the sorry saga.

I would hope so but like I say we've been invited to the party too. And don't forget that Mr. Pettit & Co. were, and they have now exitd stage left, accompanied with gushing praise from the lawyers as to how spiffingly they have engaged in the process and done whatever deal it may be

Bullseye wrote:

The legal fees is another matter. Maybe we’re paying toward that, I don’t know but surely the RFL would want us to be singing from the same hymn sheet as them and will have therefore engaged the lawyers since they have the most to lose?

…or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

I don't know but would be certain RFL and Bulls must be separately represented. I should not think it would be within the RFL's powers to agree to indemnify costs of any club being sued, and anyway as both we and RFL are being sued there would be a clear potential conflict of interest

Re: Tribunal Case : Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:02 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Surely the motivation for bringing the case is to get money that is thought to be owed?

If that’s right then why would anyone sue a club with no money? If some of the claimants are still Bulls players or employees it seems a counterproductive thing to do since their success in the claim would also mean they’d most likely be out of a job.

I think the real target has to be the RFL. They’re the ones with the money and they had a prominent role in the sorry saga.

The legal fees is another matter. Maybe we’re paying toward that, I don’t know but surely the RFL would want us to be singing from the same hymn sheet as them and will have therefore engaged the lawyers since they have the most to lose?

…or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

I don't think you area million miles away. Having dealt with a number of claims cases in my day job I've seen far too many cases involve my employers on the basis that it creates uncertainty, even if not credible... uncertainty for individuals and as a collective group.

In this case, I think the main targets are the RFL and the administrators. That is where the big money lays and is largely based around the conclusion that both parties had involvement in sinking perfectly legitimate and acceptable bids (one from the administartors point of view and one from the RFL fit and proper ruling).

The "beneficiaries" of the ruling were Cha-Lo (if you could say acquiring a shell of a club a benefit) and will have been thrown into the mix to add doubt to the case.

If Cha-Lo had accepted and settled fearing a big sum awarded by the court then it leaves the RFL and Petitt in a weak and vulnerable position. As it happens, Petitt seems to have folded early which now leaves the RFL vulnerable and I'd imagine they too will settle.

This should leave the new club free and clear, unless some of the group get greedy and hold out for the full whammy.

I have no doubt this would serve no great purpose being a cash strapped club and would those involved in the claim want their names attached as the people who finally sunk a once great club, especially when some of them are reliant on them for their current employment? Not a chance I would suggest.

This has been in the making ever since the old club went bust. Had they gone to the Insolvency Service to claim redundancy they would have already been paid out by now (most of the club staff did follow this route). However, those who haven't took the gamble on offer and it seems to be paying off. In return they will get a bigger payout.

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:14 am  

Think this is still going ahead. Hopefully there'll be a last minute settlement.

Re: Tribunal Case : Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:59 am  

Bullseye wrote:

Think this is still going ahead. Hopefully there'll be a last minute settlement.

not sure where I saw it but seem to remember 25th or 27th january as being hearing date

Re: Tribunal Case : Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:26 am  

Next Tuesday i believe. Hopefully get it out of the way relatively unscathed (or just survive) and we can all look forward.

Re: Tribunal Case : Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:51 pm  

Fully expecting the claimants to win their cases, it's just how it will affect the club in its current state that I have no idea about.

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:24 pm  

Same here Nothus.

Re: Tribunal Case : Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:47 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

Next Tuesday i believe. Hopefully get it out of the way relatively unscathed (or just survive) and we can all look forward.

My biggest hope is that some facts come out of it. I get the feeling there's a lot has gone on behind closed doors that I'd love to see out in the open, which they wouldn't avoid if there was a court case. Don't want it to destroy the club or anything like that, but it would be nice to get some of those skeletons out of the closet.

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:41 pm  

I'm all for a bit of transparency but not if it means Admin 4.

Re: Tribunal Case : Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:43 pm  

HamsterChops wrote:

My biggest hope is that some facts come out of it. I get the feeling there's a lot has gone on behind closed doors that I'd love to see out in the open, which they wouldn't avoid if there was a court case. Don't want it to destroy the club or anything like that, but it would be nice to get some of those skeletons out of the closet.

I'm still slightly bemused as to how the 'new' ChaLow Bulls are involved in this.

And I'm also slightly afraid that we could be thrown under a bus (so to speak) by certain organisations with something to hide, and something to lose.