Bulls close to £1.2m lawsuit deal

[Charlie RL]

Reported in the Guardian sport section today.  It suggest if the 4 parties don't agree today a 7 day hearing takes place next year.  I hope a settlement can be reached as a hearing will cost lots and upset most?

[Scubby]

[Amber Avenger]

Not just the Bulls which is the crucial part here - the OP could have also chosen to put "RFL close to £1.2 Million lawsuit" - or indeed either of the other two parties. 

Whilst I hope it's resolved amicably, of course, I would not be adverse to the details of the most recent takeover being revealed in court either. That fact alone probably means there will be some out of court settlement.

[jpmc]

Is this lawsuit against the bulls & the rfl ? 

[Amber Avenger]

1 minute ago, jpmc said:

Is this lawsuit against the bulls & the rfl ? 

Yes - also the Administration company and insolvency company involved last Dec/Jan

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, Amber Avenger said:

Yes - also the Administration company and insolvency company involved last Dec/Jan

Is Iestyn Harris in the clear?   (sorry guys!)

[Amber Avenger]

6 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Is Iestyn Harris in the clear?   (sorry guys!)

Never know - genuinely wouldn't be surprised if he was one of the 48 claimants!

[Odsal Outlaw]

Heard a really worrying rumour about the Bulls and the involvement of the RFL today that if true would not go down well with anyone in the sport and would become public should this go to court ... only positive would be if it results in Big Nige going!

[Wolford6]

33 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Is Iestyn Harris in the clear?   (sorry guys!)

Yes, but these days, the defenders would turn round and catch him

[TheDuke]

I cant see the RFL stumping up the cash, or having even 1/4 if the amount spare to shell out

A court case will apportion blame, in some ways I hope it goes to a full hearing so we get the truth and it shows the truth, theories will either be broken or confirmed....

[deluded pom?]

The Bulls have seen more lawsuits than Petrocelli. Google it if you're too young.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 minute ago, Amber Avenger said:

Not just the Bulls which is the crucial part here - the OP could have also chosen to put "RFL close to £1.2 Million lawsuit" - or indeed either of the other two parties. 

Whilst I hope it's resolved amicably, of course, I would not be adverse to the details of the most recent takeover being revealed in court either. 

As I suspect are quite a few people! I expect the matter will be resolved out of court though to ensure that doesn't happen. But then again, I seem to remember the Administrator being somewhat miffed by the actions of The RFL, so maybe, as he no doubt acted to the letter, he'd be happy for the truth to come out?

[Adeybull]

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.

 

 

[Scubby]

29 minutes ago, Wolford6 said:

Yes, but these days, the defenders would turn round and catch him

They did when he came back from WRU too. Let's just call it thicker set.

[Scubby]

I'm not sure the current owners could settle out of court. I don't think they carry any great wealth. Chalmers time at the NZRL is well known for turbulence. 

[Wolford6]

Just now, Scubby said:

They did when he came back from WRU too. Let's just call it thicker set.

I don't see how comments about the forwards in Lancashire teams are particularly relevant to this topic.

[Adeybull]

1 minute ago, Scubby said:

I'm not sure the current owners could settle out of court. I don't think they carry any great wealth. Chalmers time at the NZRL is well known for turbulence. 

Not relevant as far as the individuals are concerned, since the claim is against the company not them personally. I guess the issue is whether the owners could put the additional funds in to meet any substantial, agreed claim?  Or would be prepared to?  (My assumption, FWIW, is a big fat "no" to both).

[Scubby]

3 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

Not relevant as far as the individuals are concerned, since the claim is against the company not them personally. I guess the issue is whether the owners could put the additional funds in to meet any substantial, agreed claim?  Or would be prepared to?  (My assumption, FWIW, is a big fat "no" to both).

As was said earlier, maybe court is what is needed to air the whole dirty washing? Was a similar thing to the Solomona case, the closer it got to a full hearing the more facts dribbled out. I would imagine there will be a fair few of those 40 former employees with plenty of inside information too. 

[Adeybull]

5 minutes ago, Scubby said:

As was said earlier, maybe court is what is needed to air the whole dirty washing. Was a similar thing to the Solomona case, the closer it got to a full hearing the more facts dribbled out. I would imagine there will be a fair few of those 40 former employees with plenty of inside information too. 

A number of them are current employees of Bulls 4.0, I beleive, as well as being former employees of Bulls 3.0 - just to complicate matters further!

As for a court (actually tribunal, as I understand it?) hearing, well I guess if any of the parties (and one in particular?) has anything embarrassing they would prefer never saw the light of day, then an OOC settlement could be the choice for them? Indeed, if such was indeed the situation, and that had been known to the claimant's lawyer, all the more reason to lauch a case in the first place? Again, who knows? Maybe no-one outside the action ever will?

[Scubby]

2 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

As for a court (actually tribunal, as I understand it?) hearing, well I guess if any of the parties (and one in particular?) has anything embarrassing they would prefer never saw the light of day, then an OOC settlement could be the choice for them? 

They would never drag up Mick Gledhill getting arrested at Magic in Cardiff would they? 

[The Blues Ox]

Is this the court case that the RFL tried to get thrown out on a technicality? Didn't the court criticize them for how they went about trying to do that? lots more to this than meets the eye.

[Blind side johnny]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Is this the court case that the RFL tried to get thrown out on a technicality? Didn't the court criticize them for how they went about trying to do that? lots more to this than meets the eye.

Yes, and yes.

It should go to court if only to reveal some of the facts. I don't know if the RFL have the resources (or the authority) to agree any major out of court settlement so it might get messier still. Well, there's nothing on the telly is there?

[Konkrete]

4 hours ago, Adeybull said:

Not relevant as far as the individuals are concerned, since the claim is against the company not them personally. I guess the issue is whether the owners could put the additional funds in to meet any substantial, agreed claim?  Or would be prepared to?  (My assumption, FWIW, is a big fat "no" to both).

In that case we could very well be heading towards Bulls 5.0

[Rickyf1]

5 hours ago, Odsal Outlaw said:

Heard a really worrying rumour about the Bulls and the involvement of the RFL today that if true would not go down well with anyone in the sport and would become public should this go to court ... only positive would be if it results in Big Nige going!

Please share what you heard. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

It would be a great shame if the already cash strapped RFL lost any more money or spent any more time on the Bulls. At this stage they should have learnt to walk away from there - the whole set up is the biggest basket case in professional sport.