Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:06 am  

Am I the only one who gets a headache ?

Re: Next bizarre twist : Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:44 am  

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... ?ref=var_0

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... ?ref=var_0

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:12 am  

daveyz999 wrote: Fire away, I'm all ears (eyes probably makes more sense) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1591.html This is the actual ruling that caused Hood to "surrender". more like steer the car away from the brick wall it was about to hit, ok into the ditch but thats another story. the case you will note is Leeds versus Harris as primary defendant. He claimed restraint of trade, the judgement essentially was that it was not in these particular circumstances. We were next and because of this ruling were on a hiding to nothing, no defence whatsoever. So Hood did the only thing he could do with the hand CAisley dealt him, folded and saved a fortune in legal fees and compensation.

daveyz999 wrote: Fire away, I'm all ears (eyes probably makes more sense) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1591.html This is the actual ruling that caused Hood to "surrender". more like steer the car away from the brick wall it was about to hit, ok into the ditch but thats another story. the case you will note is Leeds versus Harris as primary defendant. He claimed restraint of trade, the judgement essentially was that it was not in these particular circumstances. We were next and because of this ruling were on a hiding to nothing, no defence whatsoever. So Hood did the only thing he could do with the hand CAisley dealt him, folded and saved a fortune in legal fees and compensation.

Re: Next bizarre twist : Sat Feb 15, 2014 10:41 am  

These people can approach the RFL but the only person that can sell the club is the Administrator. All this seems a bit backwards. Surely prospective buyers should approach the Administrator with an acceptable offer before wasting time at the RFL.

[Bulliac]

Re: Ownership of Club Changes : Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:12 am  

Hood, as a director, had a legal obligation not to take such risks with the company.

A more pertinent question might be that if Caisley was so absolutely certain that his case was correct why didn't he give us a 'no win, no cost' indemnity, after all, he is/was the head partner in Walker Morris,the legal firm acting for us? He was also the club's largest shareholder so it was clearly in his best interests to come up with the 'right' result.

[Bulliac]

Re: Next bizarre twist : Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:16 am  

If the RFL don't approve them as owners it devalues the bid. The club is worth very little if it can't operate and without an on-going business nothing would get back to the creditors.

[Bulliac]

Re: Next bizarre twist : Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:18 am  

jsb1990 wrote:

Bullman and Bull Boy sign for Leeds.

Didn't we once poach the Rhino? Well, we got the guy who used to wear the suit......y'know what I mean!

Re: Next bizarre twist : Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:19 am  

Its the chicken and egg scenario.

IF Mr Lamb has made a provisional offer to the receivers that is acceptable to them he first needs agreement from the RFL that the Bulls would obtain/retain its superleague licence under his ownership before then confirming his offer.

Re: Next bizarre twist : Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:28 pm  

But don't we know from last time that the RFL cannot guarantee retaining Super League licence.

Re: Next bizarre twist : Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:31 pm  

bobsmyuncle wrote:

Its the chicken and egg scenario.

IF Mr Lamb has made a provisional offer to the receivers that is acceptable to them he first needs agreement from the RFL that the Bulls would obtain/retain its superleague licence under his ownership before then confirming his offer.

But we know from QI that the egg came first as chickens evolved from early species which all emerged from eggs originally.