[Pumpetypump]

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:36 pm  

I have no particular downer on Mr Green, but I'm no more optimistic than this time yesterday. That won't change until I hear we've signed new players.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:38 pm  

Nice to see SSN giving us quite a bit of news coverage - We are currently occupying the "Breaking News" section.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:39 pm  

They have a news section for things that are breaking? That's very granular.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:40 pm  

vbfg wrote:

They have a news section for things that are breaking? That's very granular.

Granted, it's more of a bar at the bottom of the page, although i'm going to call this a section

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:41 pm  

Does this mean that as of today any player can refuse to TUPE across and leave?

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:44 pm  

daveyz999 wrote:

Just heard the interview with Koukash and he didn't sound bitter towards Green, but more the RFL and administrator for not even giving Mandy a courtesy call to let her know the situation of her bid.

He said she's upset that the decision was made without giving her the opportunity to invest in the sport.

There's nothing stopping her investing in the sport. If he means running a club on her terms then maybe.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:45 pm  

Cows wrote: He's not likely to appeal that administration was avoidable when it was him that put the club in administraion is he? Sounds to me like that RFL statement was written with him in mind, knowing he wouldn't say it was avoidable. I can just see no logic in not appealing. I belive the worst case would be a very quick no, it still 6. He's already stated the administration was unavoidable (IE not just a trick to gain competitive advantage which is what the RFL are worried about) as he did it to avoid a winding up order from HMRC; "The Bulls faced a Winding Up Order issued by HMRC and had SSG not exercised their powers as Debenture holders to appoint an Administrator the Club would have been compulsorily wound up and would have ceased to exist" http://www.ssgltd.co.uk/latest-news-details.aspx?news_id=16 If thats true, the only reason for not appealing would be if he's not paid or is not planning to pay anyone (HMRC)off at all, if he's paid any or intends to pay any he has to appeal.

Cows wrote: He's not likely to appeal that administration was avoidable when it was him that put the club in administraion is he? Sounds to me like that RFL statement was written with him in mind, knowing he wouldn't say it was avoidable. I can just see no logic in not appealing. I belive the worst case would be a very quick no, it still 6. He's already stated the administration was unavoidable (IE not just a trick to gain competitive advantage which is what the RFL are worried about) as he did it to avoid a winding up order from HMRC; "The Bulls faced a Winding Up Order issued by HMRC and had SSG not exercised their powers as Debenture holders to appoint an Administrator the Club would have been compulsorily wound up and would have ceased to exist" http://www.ssgltd.co.uk/latest-news-details.aspx?news_id=16 If thats true, the only reason for not appealing would be if he's not paid or is not planning to pay anyone (HMRC)off at all, if he's paid any or intends to pay any he has to appeal.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:50 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

Does this mean that as of today any player can refuse to TUPE across and leave?

I reckon so. But the players' situation never was explained, having been TUPEd across to BB2014, there is no legal way that I have ever heard of how they came to be beamed back to OKB. I assume nobody made a fuss or took the point as they just wanted their wages paying, whoever paid them, but the consensus of legal opinion is that there can be no such thing as a reversible TUPE.

And if there was, and no actual TUPE (with hindsight) happened, so the players never actually left OKB, then interestingly where does that leave Scruton? As I say, this is such a minefield I fully expect everyone to quietly ignore it, and I expect they will all pretend that the players are being TUPEd from OKB to BBNL as if the previous TUPE which Scruton rejected never actually happened.

On which basis, yes, they can all refuse to be TUPEd and become free agents.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:53 pm  

Duckman wrote: I can just see no logic in not appealing. I belive the worst case would be a very quick no, it still 6. He's already stated the administration was unavoidable (IE not just a trick to gain competitive advantage which is what the RFL are worried about) as he did it to avoid a winding up order from HMRC; "The Bulls faced a Winding Up Order issued by HMRC and had SSG not exercised their powers as Debenture holders to appoint an Administrator the Club would have been compulsorily wound up and would have ceased to exist" http://www.ssgltd.co.uk/latest-news-details.aspx?news_id=16 If thats true, the only reason for not appealing would be if he's not paid or is not planning to pay anyone (HMRC)off at all, if he's paid any or intends to pay any he has to appeal. Maybe he's not clear yet if there will be any payments to creditors beyond what will be paid by the administrator using the funds paid for the club. If he needs to deal with suppliers, who are also creditors, there may be payments made to ensure an ongoing relationship but I'd guess until he's spoken to them he won't know the extent (if any) of those.

Duckman wrote: I can just see no logic in not appealing. I belive the worst case would be a very quick no, it still 6. He's already stated the administration was unavoidable (IE not just a trick to gain competitive advantage which is what the RFL are worried about) as he did it to avoid a winding up order from HMRC; "The Bulls faced a Winding Up Order issued by HMRC and had SSG not exercised their powers as Debenture holders to appoint an Administrator the Club would have been compulsorily wound up and would have ceased to exist" http://www.ssgltd.co.uk/latest-news-details.aspx?news_id=16 If thats true, the only reason for not appealing would be if he's not paid or is not planning to pay anyone (HMRC)off at all, if he's paid any or intends to pay any he has to appeal. Maybe he's not clear yet if there will be any payments to creditors beyond what will be paid by the administrator using the funds paid for the club. If he needs to deal with suppliers, who are also creditors, there may be payments made to ensure an ongoing relationship but I'd guess until he's spoken to them he won't know the extent (if any) of those.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:53 pm  

Duckman wrote:

.. He's already stated the administration was unavoidable (IE not just a trick to gain competitive advantage which is what the RFL are worried about) as he did it to avoid a winding up order from HMRC;
..

Er, but that IS a trick! Winding up was entirely avoidable, by the simple expedient of paying HMRC what they were owed.