[Bullseye]

Tribunal Case : Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:57 am  

Needs its own thread I think.

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:08 am  

I'll try and move the posts about this subject across but this isn't the easiest thing for a techno ignoramus like me.

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:15 am  

Yay I think I did it. Please can we keep all tribunal discussion on here and leave the 2018 thread for team and coaching discussion if there is a team and a coach to discuss at the end of all this...

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:22 am  

Latest stuff here. http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... ord_Bulls/ Not sure about the involvement of the Govt department BEIS.

Latest stuff here. http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... ord_Bulls/ Not sure about the involvement of the Govt department BEIS.

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:24 am  

Adey's thoughts on TotalRL.com here:

Don't be sidetracked by the "liquidation" nonsense that was pedalled at the time. If the claimants can demonstrate that this was in substance - if not in legal form - effectively a transfer of undertaking (that may be why the RFL are enjoined in the action, perhaps as a facilitator?) then there may well be a prima facie TUPE case

Whether this IS a TUPE-related action, or something else, we really do not know, though. So all we can do is speculate.

ps - the RFL did not buy any rights from the adminstrators. They bought some assets which they then supposedly sold on to Newco. The RFL already held all the rights regarding who could be admitted to the competition, and those rights trumped the normal commercial situation regaring selling assets and businesses the administrators were familiar with.   As Pettit made very clear in his statements at the time.

pps. makes you wonder if somewhere, between Bulls 4.0 and Bulls 5.0, the RFL effectively became the employer for a short period? Again, maybe in substance iof not in legal form?  Had not thought of that before, but could be a very strong reason why the RFL would be enjoined in the action?  The thick plottens...

Re: Tribunal Case : Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:01 am  

Really hope it gets sorted so we can just look forward to the new season with nothing hanging over us for once

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:47 am  

You know it won't.

Whether the whole saga was conspiracy or cock up will all come out at Tribunal. I guess we'll see how much the RFL is prepared to risk that.

Re: Tribunal Case : Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:48 am  

Bullseye wrote:

Adey's thoughts on TotalRL.com here:


pps. makes you wonder if somewhere, between Bulls 4.0 and Bulls 5.0, the RFL effectively became the employer for a short period? Again, maybe in substance iof not in legal form?  Had not thought of that before, but could be a very strong reason why the RFL would be enjoined in the action?  The thick plottens...

In regards to this, if I remember correctly wasn't there a new 'Bradford Northern' announced with ALL the players TUPEd over? They announced it before getting RFL permission. I vaguely remember looking at their initial website....

This was, of course, until the RFL decided that they were not the preferred owners and euthanised it.

However, if the players were TUPEd over, and then the RFL killed that off wouldn't the RFL have a responsibility to these players, as they have technically made them redundant once again?

[Bullseye]

Re: Tribunal Case : Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:56 am  

Another post by Adey...

IIRC, the claim is by 40-plus former employess - players and staff - of Bulls 3.0 (Bradford Bulls Northern Ltd) which entered Administration 14/11/16 and which entered Winding-Up ("Liquidation") on 3/2/17.

Incidentally, ignore totally any references to "liquidation" starting early January 2017. Although most folk think it did from the variious statements and reports at the time, It did not!  All those statements effectively said at the time was that the company would now be liquidated. As usual, a combination of ambiguous (for whatever reason, innocent or disingenuous) public statements and the media not really having a clue about how insolvency works led people to believe liquidation happened at the start of January.  Again, it did not.

I labour this point partly because the continued inaccuracy winds the financial pedant in me up, but also because the timing MAY be relevant (I speculate, really do not know!). Liquidation automatically terminates all employment contracts.  Administration does NOT.  This may or (probably) may not be relevant, but I flag it up for completeness if nothing else.

The other defendants are the RFL, and Bradford Bulls Northern Ltd (Bulls 3.0).

Why are Bulls 4.0 enjoined in the claim? I can only assume that it is because the claimants allege the TUPE rules should have applied when Bulls 4.0 took on staff?  i.e. that there was effectively a continuation of the business, and therefore employment?  And that, therefore, Bulls 4.0 are deemed to have acquired all the accrued employment entitlements of all those Bulls 3.0 staff who were still employed by Bulls 3.0 (in Administration) at the time the Administrators closed the business at the start of January (and maybe even some of those made redundant before then, if any?).  And that, therefore, Bulls 4.0 will be reponsible for settling the redundancy claims and also the claims of re-engaged staff? 

And why is the RFL involved?  Well there is the 64k dollar question?  It can surely only be because the claimants allege that the RFL was somehow party to it all, in an employment capacity? I can't see how else the claimants could have a claim against the RFL?

Now we know, or have deduced, that the Administrators looked to have had an offer or at least clear intent from Bradford Bulls Capital Ltd - Thorne's newly-formed vehicle at the start of January, pretty well immediately after the Administrators announced the closure of the business (NOT into liquidation at that point).  Certainly, folk were convening meetings at Odsal with staff saying they would be taking over, and seemingly offering contracts from what was reported at the time? But then the RFL stepped in, and effectively vetoed whatever was happening, and imposed their own requirements and timings.  The Administrators described those actions by the RFL as being "unauthorised" - by which I presume they meant by them - and the net result was the undertaking was sold not to Thorne (or anyone else) but to Bulls 4.0, owned (so the records say) by Chalmers and Lowe.

One assumes that the RFL's involvement in this process, and in effectively selecting the new owners, must be a/the reason why they have been enjoined in the claim?  Unless, of course, there is yet more to the whole debacle of a process that we are not (yet?) aware of? It would not surprise me one bit - given there has been loads previously over the history of the Bulls' serial insolvencies that seems never to have seen daylight -  but who the *** knows??  Certainly not me.

And, since I have limited confidence in the RFL's competance in matters legal, who knows maybe they screwed something up inadvertantly by not doing things properly? 

Bulls 4.0 attributed the dramatic downturn in performances during the season, at least in part,  to when this claim was launched, since it involved a number players who were party to the claim. I guess only the players and those very close to them will know if there was any truth in that?

I have no idea what the outcome of all this will be, not least because I have no real idea of the basis and particulars of the claim. I guess any OOC settlement (today or otherwise) will mean some of the true facts never become public?  I just hope it IS settled today, since the ongoing major uncertainty cannot be doing anyone any favours.

 

 

Re: Tribunal Case : Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:11 am  

That's what I said, however much less eloquently

I also wonder if the RFL withdrawing funding to pay off 'Rugby debts' further muddies the water. Why some but not others.