Re: Tribunal Case : Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:36 am  

Bullseye wrote:

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

Also apart from Chisholm, pretty muchh all the squad was signed up by Chalmers.

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:42 am  

thepimp007 wrote:

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

Did he? If so when? Do you know that for sure? If it was that simple why would there even be a case?

Even if he did if a new club suddenly pops up with the same stadium, same training centre, same (some of the) staff, etc. The RFL also insisted that any Newco must suffer a points deduction, reduction in central funding and pay off some "rugby debts" of the old club and comply with all sorts of conditions (MUST PLAY AT ODSAL) that could only ever apply to a continuing operation. No way would any totally new entrant be so penalised or constrained. Newco then re-hire the players to then play in the same kit under the same name. It looks to me like avoidance of TUPE to me at the very least. Cramer undoubtedly has a case.

Otherwise why would the RFL have had a top barrister try and get most of the claims dismissed on a technicality (absurdly, as the judge ruled) if they weren't genuinely concerned?

Re: Tribunal Case : Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:52 am  

to save even more legal costs, Bullseye. Tupe 8(7) applies as follows: https://www.businessrescueexpert.co.uk/ ... nsolvency/ So you can even buy oldco assets - eg the name - and avoid TUPE. So I would guess any case revolves around how the insolvency became terminal, that strange last minute no-offer-good-enough scenario that resulted in liquidation, or was said to result. I am not a conspiracy theorist but this could start me on that slippery slope to positively persistent nay perpetual paraonoia.

to save even more legal costs, Bullseye. Tupe 8(7) applies as follows: https://www.businessrescueexpert.co.uk/ ... nsolvency/ So you can even buy oldco assets - eg the name - and avoid TUPE. So I would guess any case revolves around how the insolvency became terminal, that strange last minute no-offer-good-enough scenario that resulted in liquidation, or was said to result. I am not a conspiracy theorist but this could start me on that slippery slope to positively persistent nay perpetual paraonoia.

Re: Tribunal Case : Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:03 pm  

I am no TUPE expert, but my unease about it is not because of the business being reborn under the same name etc., that happens all the time, in various ways, it is the muddy waters of the question of whether the old company did or did not go into liquidation before the new owners acquired what they acquired. It was reported that the old company had been liquidated but that seemed to me far too speedy as these things take time. If they'd waited till it was liquidated then we'd probably have been bullet proof. But might also have missed the first part of the season.

If the old company had still not been actually liquidated, though, then I suspect that may be one of the likely central difficulties.

Re: Tribunal Case : Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:15 pm  

One hymn sheet, two choristers, though I do have occasional problems harmonising my basso profundo with your counter-tenor, FA

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:10 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

If the old company had still not been actually liquidated, though, then I suspect that may be one of the likely central difficulties.

Think you may be onto something there.

Re: Tribunal Case : Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:20 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Did he? If so when? Do you know that for sure? If it was that simple why would there even be a case?

Even if he did if a new club suddenly pops up with the same stadium, same training centre, same (some of the) staff, etc. The RFL also insisted that any Newco must suffer a points deduction, reduction in central funding and pay off some "rugby debts" of the old club and comply with all sorts of conditions (MUST PLAY AT ODSAL) that could only ever apply to a continuing operation. No way would any totally new entrant be so penalised or constrained. Newco then re-hire the players to then play in the same kit under the same name. It looks to me like avoidance of TUPE to me at the very least. Cramer undoubtedly has a case.

Otherwise why would the RFL have had a top barrister try and get most of the claims dismissed on a technicality (absurdly, as the judge ruled) if they weren't genuinely concerned?

I'm only going off what was reported at the time. Totally agree What was reported and what actually happened will be two different things hence the current mess

Re: Tribunal Case : Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:38 pm  

Case resolved... http://www.totalrl.com/bradford-bulls-legal-dispute-settled-rfl-reach-agreement/ Time to move on.

Case resolved... http://www.totalrl.com/bradford-bulls-legal-dispute-settled-rfl-reach-agreement/ Time to move on.

Re: Tribunal Case : Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:42 pm  

Fantastic news! Brilliant brilliant news to start the weekend!

Re: Tribunal Case : Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:57 pm  

Does it mean it's resolved, or does it just mean that the case against the RFL is resolved?

Wasn't their a case against us, as well?

I don't know much about these things but the statement just seems to indicate that the RFL's involvement is finished.