Mark Moore was involved with the club before Mr Khan stood down at the end of September although it's not been stated in what role but he wasn't a director. Hi company had been a sponsor before that. Ian Watt and Andrew Calvert became involved after Mr Khan stood down.
All three were involved as sponsors or similar, or had been in the past. Calvert and Watt are long-standing fans. Moore and Watt I know and saw were providing unpaid help and support up at Oddal, like high-level volunteers, before end September. I think Watt with the sound sytems and the like, and Moore with things like merchandise and some other marketing areas. I could see, from my own observation, that none of them seemed to have had any management or direction role in the business, certainly up to mid-September. That seemed to be the exclusive province of Whitcu*t.
RHP was never a director of OK Bulls, either before or after the ownership-change-that-was-then-was-not-not-but-then-was-but-then-was-not-again. The title CEO did not of itself confer any board role. From my own observation, RHP looked to be primarily involved in marketing and business development and PR work before the changeover, and Whitcu*t was pretty well running the show operationally. He was not a director either, until the changeover. And then briefly till he stood down shortly after.
RHP was appointed a director of the new company at the end of January.
RHP suggesting that there'll be another TUPE 'window' if any bid other than BB2014 is accepted, and that more players may decide to leave
Scaremongering? Or genuine?
If the business is transferred to yet another new company, if any other bid is accepted, then the transfer of employment and TUPE happens all over again.
This ongoing uncertainty is highly damaging. I very much suspect that we have seen the law of unexpected consequences set it, or at least Red Hall will have. If anyone else other than the current incumbents does get the club, I can only hope and pray that he has a plan, that can be implemented very quickly and with minimal further disruption, and will bring more to the future of the club than the current incumbents could. A load of money would be a good start, of course...!
It does very much concern me though how anyone who has not already had pretty extensive involvement, could simply turn up and the club carries on with minimal further disruption and uncertainty, unless they worked with the current incumbents. Does not sound like that is on the cards as yet, from RHP's comments though.
RHP suggesting that there'll be another TUPE 'window' if any bid other than BB2014 is accepted, and that more players may decide to leave
Scaremongering? Or genuine?
If the business is transferred to yet another new company, if any other bid is accepted, then the transfer of employment and TUPE happens all over again.
This ongoing uncertainty is highly damaging. I very much suspect that we have seen the law of unexpected consequences set it, or at least Red Hall will have. If anyone else other than the current incumbents does get the club, I can only hope and pray that he has a plan, that can be implemented very quickly and with minimal further disruption, and will bring more to the future of the club than the current incumbents could. A load of money would be a good start, of course...!
It does very much concern me though how anyone who has not already had pretty extensive involvement, could simply turn up and the club carries on with minimal further disruption and uncertainty, unless they worked with the current incumbents. Does not sound like that is on the cards as yet, from RHP's comments though.
Thanks for the reply, I agree with much of what you say.
In terms of liabilities to HMRC, I am of course just assuming like you, but I would estimate at least 3 months worth of unpaid dues as no doubt January's (due about now) will have gone unpaid too.
Yes, I'd assume the same. January's was not due till 22/2, of course, in the normal course of events. (Normal? Bulls? If only...!)
Derwent wrote:
I would expect that Operational Rules A3:1 and A3:2 would be in force in this case, although it is clear that not all special measures have been imposed as the club is still able to register players (which, incidentally, when Whitehaven went into administration owing HMRC they were not allowed to sign any players for 9 months).
I think the prohibition on signing is, and remains in place? The only "registrations" during this crisis I think have been short-term loans? Only for a month? Which I am presuming is the maximum that will be sanctioned in the circumstances? And I presume their employing club retains their registrations? (Anyone able to improve on that, please do.)
Derwent wrote:
BTW, I saw a list of the assets which transferred to OK Bulls from Bradford Bulls Holdings the other day - what/where is York House (GBV of £1.07m, NBV of £880k) ?
I have not seen any such list, so I can't add anything there beyond saying I don't recall seeing any such-named asset in either the accounts of BBH or in the particulars etc that the administrator issued. If you have any more details, PM me? Cheers.
Blake Solly, the RFL’s director of licensing and standards, confirmed the change of ownership would not affect the central money allocated to the Bulls and that the club would again receive only half of the usual amount for the second successive year.
Not half the amount the other clubs receive, but half the usual (= annual). amount.
Or 48.17% of the other clubs.
Not sure what your point is. But (1) it's not up to him (2) NOTHING can happen unless the new owners (whoever they are) agreed to this in writing.
(3) It occurs that any new owner might be inclined to agree to that, since as I pointed out before, they would only be losing some money for the rest of this year (ie the rump end of the old Bulls' penalty) and wouldn't be receiving any additional new "half money" penalty of their own. I wouldn't be complaining, but some may ask, if the penalty for admin for the previous lot was 2 years on half distribution, why not the same for the next admin?
Also the amount is defined in a written and clear agreement. The amount isn't somehow changed by anything anyone - Blake Solly or anybody else - says in some off-the-cuff remark.
He is right, but definite scaremongering. If a player had a desire to leave, he would have done so by now, using the original TUPE window.
If we have a new buyer, I'm not as worried about players leaving as I was the last company change.
I suppose Robbie also has quite a bit to lose if the new bids are accepted.
Sammut has shown that you don't need to use TUPE to walk away from your contract, you just have to ask to leave. So as you say, players would have left by now if they wanted to. Hopefully!
Sammut has shown that you don't need to use TUPE to walk away from your contract, you just have to ask to leave. ..
Well not quite the hole story though, you need somewhere to leave to, and it needs to be a place which will pay the requisite moeny to your existing club to secure your transfer. Sammut hasn't "walked away" from his contract, it's all been done in a proper and above-board manner.
Well not quite the hole story though, you need somewhere to leave to, and it needs to be a place which will pay the requisite moeny to your existing club to secure your transfer. Sammut hasn't "walked away" from his contract, it's all been done in a proper and above-board manner.
What I meant was, he had a contract, he asked to leave and the club didn't stand in his way. Whether it was above board or not, it just shows that players can leave now if they want to, TUPE or no TUPE. The only difference a new TUPE scenario will create is that the club won't get any transfer fee. I'm trying to cling on to the hope that no more player will leave if we switch owners again!
BTW, I saw a list of the assets which transferred to OK Bulls from Bradford Bulls Holdings the other day - what/where is York House (GBV of £1.07m, NBV of £880k) ?
Clarified.
Its part of the cost of the Coral stand. It and next item on list, total original cost c.£1.9m.
The muppets at BBH in 2002 listed those two items under the names of those who billed them (York House were the builders...) not under what the asset actually was. Wassocks.
