[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:45 pm  

Fr13daY wrote:

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.

That concerns me too but I would expect Cramer to be pursuing those who are most likely to be able to pay up, i.e. not us.

Re: Tribunal Case : Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:56 pm  

Fr13daY wrote:

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

Friend of mine has a theory, but it's based on a lot of conjecture (i.e. trying to guess the rest of the jigsaw when we only really have the edge pieces). His theory certainly sounds plausible though and is effectively based around the current owners finding it more beneficial to start a new club rather than take over the old one, and engineering that scenario along with the other parties being sued. I stress though, total theory, no fact, no accusation here.

Re: Tribunal Case : Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:09 pm  

HamsterChops wrote:

Friend of mine has a theory, but it's based on a lot of conjecture (i.e. trying to guess the rest of the jigsaw when we only really have the edge pieces). His theory certainly sounds plausible though and is effectively based around the current owners finding it more beneficial to start a new club rather than take over the old one, and engineering that scenario along with the other parties being sued. I stress though, total theory, no fact, no accusation here.

Well it would be debt free for a start rather than a tarnished holding company. I just think the fact we were punished for the 'old clubs' misdemeanors and in all but holding company name to the naked eye we are the same club. Its very plausible what you have said I would imagine. Also the fact that Pettitts lot settled they didnt want their side airing in public either

Re: Tribunal Case : Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:17 pm  

HamsterChops wrote: Friend of mine has a theory, but it's based on a lot of conjecture (i.e. trying to guess the rest of the jigsaw when we only really have the edge pieces). His theory certainly sounds plausible though and is effectively based around the current owners finding it more beneficial to start a new club rather than take over the old one, and engineering that scenario along with the other parties being sued. I stress though, total theory, no fact, no accusation here. How could you prove that though? Chalmers made an offer and it was rejected by the administrator/creditors. If Green was the chairman again i could understand. Only thing i thing i am taking as a smidgen of reassurance is there are a number of claimants who are currently on the playing roster. Whether Chalmers thinks the case has merit or not, if we lose and we don't have the funds to pay the claimants, surely he's advised those players of this. They're not exactly going to persue the claim if there is a possibility of them being unemployed. Richard Cramer would also advise of this. Is it the same Richard Cramer who owns agency elite star management along with Karl Harrison (see bottom of page in link below) http://elitestar.co.uk/ If it is, he represents Liam Kirk, Vila Halafihi, Lee Smith and Ethan Ryan i believe. He'll know the sums involved and whether we can pay it. He wouldn't advise his clients to sign with us if he thought the payout by the club would make them unemployed.

HamsterChops wrote: Friend of mine has a theory, but it's based on a lot of conjecture (i.e. trying to guess the rest of the jigsaw when we only really have the edge pieces). His theory certainly sounds plausible though and is effectively based around the current owners finding it more beneficial to start a new club rather than take over the old one, and engineering that scenario along with the other parties being sued. I stress though, total theory, no fact, no accusation here. How could you prove that though? Chalmers made an offer and it was rejected by the administrator/creditors. If Green was the chairman again i could understand. Only thing i thing i am taking as a smidgen of reassurance is there are a number of claimants who are currently on the playing roster. Whether Chalmers thinks the case has merit or not, if we lose and we don't have the funds to pay the claimants, surely he's advised those players of this. They're not exactly going to persue the claim if there is a possibility of them being unemployed. Richard Cramer would also advise of this. Is it the same Richard Cramer who owns agency elite star management along with Karl Harrison (see bottom of page in link below) http://elitestar.co.uk/ If it is, he represents Liam Kirk, Vila Halafihi, Lee Smith and Ethan Ryan i believe. He'll know the sums involved and whether we can pay it. He wouldn't advise his clients to sign with us if he thought the payout by the club would make them unemployed.

[Bulliac]

Re: Tribunal Case : Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:59 am  

HamsterChops wrote:

Friend of mine has a theory, but it's based on a lot of conjecture (i.e. trying to guess the rest of the jigsaw when we only really have the edge pieces). His theory certainly sounds plausible though and is effectively based around the current owners finding it more beneficial to start a new club rather than take over the old one, and engineering that scenario along with the other parties being sued. I stress though, total theory, no fact, no accusation here.

My own conjecture is that maybe they were just innocent victims. Cha-Low being pawns, caught in middle and being browbeaten by the RFL on one side, looking after the interests of the game and the administrator, looking to get as much cash as he could, the on the other. My main worry is that in order to get the playing registration they, perhaps, 'connived' with the RFL in "something" which technically was a bit borderline.

Against all that is the fact that they had no known previous connection with Bradford or the club - so why would they get involved with anything "complicated"? It's not as though they were, say me (or most on here, perhaps), with a life long passion for them club, who might have felt it OK to 'push the boundaries' a little. So why would they, why did they not just walk away?

I think my head is hurting - time to lie down in a darkened room.

Re: Tribunal Case : Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:13 am  

Is Green in the gang of 4 being pursued?

Chal-Lo were accepted by the RFL and Admin weren't they? Only for Green to subsequently reject it when he thought a better offer was on the table but which never actually materialised?

If he hadn't then they'd have been TUPE'd and the world would have carried on? Maybe there's grounds to go after him for lost wages given the RFL/Admin recommendation finally came about anyway?

Re: Tribunal Case : Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:27 pm  

Scarey71 wrote:

Is Green in the gang of 4 being pursued?

Chal-Lo were accepted by the RFL and Admin weren't they? Only for Green to subsequently reject it when he thought a better offer was on the table but which never actually materialised?

If he hadn't then they'd have been TUPE'd and the world would have carried on? Maybe there's grounds to go after him for lost wages given the RFL/Admin recommendation finally came about anyway?

I might be wrong here but I think their claim against the old co has been settled already.

Re: Tribunal Case : Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:18 pm  

Nothus wrote:

I might be wrong here but I think their claim against the old co has been settled already.

The liquidators have settled. I would think they effectively were the old co.

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:21 pm  

Don't think Green is owt to do with this. It's all about avoidance of TUPE.

Re: Tribunal Case : Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:33 am  

Bullseye wrote:

Don't think Green is owt to do with this. It's all about avoidance of TUPE.

Thats the thing, but didn't Pettit make everybody redundant? Wouldn't that clear the need for TUPE if the players were clubless