[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:23 am  

Disagree totally with the post knocking Kear.

He ran himself into the ground and was one of the few who gave a good lead to the kids, imo. There were some very poor performances at that game but Elliot is one who could definitely look himself in the face when he shaved the morning after.

Re: Ownership and twists : Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:44 am  

Missed Donno in the middle channels. He now seems to be the defensive mainstay of the team. How long is he out for? Rest of the forwards need to pick up his workrate.

On another matter, the creditors meeting should now be underway in Leeds

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:28 pm  

Wooden Stand wrote:

But, according to your mate FA, there's no such thing as 'the Club'.

According to me, you are, again, talking bollox. I vainly tried to explain to you that there is no legal entity that exists in law separately from the company that owns the Bulls. This was when you tried to claim "the Club" had appealed, i.e. some legal entity separate from the owners, and I explained to you that this was a nonsense, illustrating my point with a question or two, such as, what if the owners did not want to appeal, but this club did? And if this club legally exists separately, then who speaks for it?

Of course, when people talk about "the Bulls" and "the club", it is plainly obvious to everyone except you what, in context, they are talking about. Which, 99% of the time, will just be in general conversation where legal distinctions and definitions aren't important. But it was important in that particular context.

Why is it such a problem for you? Perhaps you should try to not let being corrected get under your skin as much as it clearly does.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:46 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

According to me, you are, again, talking bollox. I vainly tried to explain to you that there is no legal entity that exists in law separately from the company that owns the Bulls. This was when you tried to claim "the Club" had appealed, i.e. some legal entity separate from the owners, and I explained to you that this was a nonsense, illustrating my point with a question or two, such as, what if the owners did not want to appeal, but this club did? And if this club legally exists separately, then who speaks for it?

Of course, when people talk about "the Bulls" and "the club", it is plainly obvious to everyone except you what, in context, they are talking about. Which, 99% of the time, will just be in general conversation where legal distinctions and definitions aren't important. But it was important in that particular context.

Why is it such a problem for you? Perhaps you should try to not let being corrected get under your skin as much as it clearly does.

Say you have a company like M&S - the executive directors of the company decide to pay themselves a £10m bonus - the owners of M&S eg the shareholoders don't like this but cannot organise themselves to vote it down at the agm. Owners and "company" the same?

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:31 pm  

FA, there is a legal entity called superleague, that has rules etc that enable a new set of owners of one of the participants in that legal arrangement to make an appeal for a penalty applied to previous owners. its all in the agreement between the two legal entities, which has an existence outside of the owners of the legal entity. that agreement enables the owners to appeal if they wish to, or not if that is how they are minded. Two parties and a legal agreement between them, pretty fundamental legal stuff dont you think? or do we just sayh we have a franchise and thats it, we are in superleague?

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 24, 2014 11:29 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

Say you have a company like M&S - the executive directors of the company decide to pay themselves a £10m bonus - the owners of M&S eg the shareholoders don't like this but cannot organise themselves to vote it down at the agm. Owners and "company" the same?

Obviously 100% not. You claim he shareholders simply cannot organise themselves. A purely logistical matter. If the alleged majority of shareholders cant be arrsed, it just means the company does what those running it tell it to do. The owners in this sense are certainly the same, as the company must do what those entrusted to run it decree. If you own something, but cant control it, that doesnt make you not the owner. The majority of the owners aquiesce in what the directors do. The only mechanism is to "Vote against". "Not liking " X is irrelevant, if as a shareholder you will not actively vote against it.

However, if I am a shareholder of a company, this of course does not affect the fact that I am a legal person, and the company is a separate legal person.

Re: Ownership and twists : Thu Apr 24, 2014 11:35 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

FA, there is a legal entity called superleague, that has rules etc that enable a new set of owners of one of the participants in that legal arrangement to make an appeal for a penalty applied to previous owners. its all in the agreement between the two legal entities, which has an existence outside of the owners of the legal entity. that agreement enables the owners to appeal if they wish to, or not if that is how they are minded. Two parties and a legal agreement between them, pretty fundamental legal stuff dont you think? or do we just sayh we have a franchise and thats it, we are in superleague?

SLE is a legal entity.

There is no rule that allows (or disallows) any such appeal. But if you say the a right of "appeal" by someone (the new owners) who have never actually had a ruling made against them, then please refer me to that rule. If you can, I will of course gladly accept its existence.

I believe the reason probably is because nobody foresaw the convoluted situation we are now in. But if you say there is a right of "appeal" by someone (the new owners) who have never actually had a ruling made against them, then please refer me to that rule. If you can, I will of course gladly accept its existence.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sun Apr 27, 2014 7:53 pm  

I see Stuart Duffy has been on twitter making a fool of himself. Wonder what the club will do seen as they dismissed the club shop employee for being immature.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:02 pm  

Absolutely disgusting comment after everything the fans have stood by and done for the club over the last 2 years. In many jobs criticising customers on social media is a sackable offence. As the clubs media manager you would think he would know better.

Re: Ownership and twists : Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:06 pm  

It was a daft thing to tweet, criticising the fan base has never encouraged them to return! The faux outrage p!sses me off though. He's since withdrawn the tweet and apologised.