Re: Marc Green statement / Appeal : Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:20 pm  

daveyz999 wrote:

Question for FA...

If the case goes to the High Court - Does the hearing conclude in an open public court, where maybe the rafters could be filled with sports journalists waiting to type the claims made against the RFL in their next newspaper/magazine addition?

Well as you know, I just make everything up, but that said, every hearing in practically every case is public, whether in court or in chambers, anybody is free to go along and watch.

Re: Marc Green statement / Appeal : Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:23 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Well as you know, I just make everything up, but that said, every hearing in practically every case is public, whether in court or in chambers, anybody is free to go along and watch.

Interesting.

Up until this point, every hearing (even the 'independent' one) has been concluded without any details of our defense. So far the RFL have managed to brush all claims under the carpet, if this High Court case progresses, I get the feeling certain people at the RFL may be finding their CV's making sure they are up to date.

Re: Marc Green statement / Appeal : Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:25 pm  

I never understood why Hudds let the Mason case go to court so all the dirty linen (Kopczak) could be aired in public. If there is anything in the Bulls allegations, then the RFL will be desperate to settle. What could they offer I wonder?

[Bulliac]

Re: Marc Green statement / Appeal : Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:30 pm  

HalifaxCougar wrote:

Thanks for clearing that up. As for your other 3 defenders then let the guy speak and stop jumping the gun.

Welcome to the championship and do you think you will remain at Odsal or play at somewhere like park avenue?

I don't think anyone will be playing at Park Avenue as the ground is overgrown and boarded up, [or do you mean joining with Park Avenue at Horsfall?

Whichever, I don't think either of those are really goers to be fair. Probably staying at Odsal for the foreseeable, I'd guess.

Re: Marc Green statement / Appeal : Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:32 pm  

Highlander wrote:

I never understood why Hudds let the Mason case go to court so all the dirty linen (Kopczak) could be aired in public. If there is anything in the Bulls allegations, then the RFL will be desperate to settle. What could they offer I wonder?

Couple of months rent?

[Bulliac]

Re: Marc Green statement / Appeal : Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:34 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

I don't think I have heard so many references to lawyers since good old Robert Maxwell's time - and we know who was the guilty party there, despite his little army of m'learned friends. But in the situation you mention above why sue someone who you cannot hope to recover anything from?

Maybe it depends on whether you have a good name you wish to protect? Money, may be most things, but it isn't always everything.

Re: Marc Green statement / Appeal : Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:04 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

I think it's only fair to point out that, as this is now going to court, it will presumably be covered by the sub judice ruling and we should all be a bit careful how we comment until the case is resolved.

It can't be sub judice until a case exists, i.e. a date is set for a hearing by the court.

It won't get that far as Green states he is "keeping options open"...I think this means, when Bulls become mathmatically down, any threat of action will drop.

Of course, if Bulls start picking up points...then it gets interesting.

Re: Marc Green statement / Appeal : Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:07 pm  

This latest development by the owner is a disaster for supporters of the Bradford Bulls.

Financially motivated: gamble up to £50,000 with possibility of staying in Super League (a net gain in funding of about a million). A business decision worth going for - especially IF Club you own owes you money.

Guess case will be dropped as soon as it is clear that even 6 points points back wouldn't avert relegation. Expect it will be spun out with minimised costs until that point.

Even if it went the distance and the Bulls "won", I expect the outcome would NOT be 6 points back. More a case of the Court requiring a change in the RFL's FUTURE procedures so that it is In Future bound by precedent and, in particular, has to have a set points penalty for going into Administration and with a set scale of reduced points deduction based on the % owing to creditors repaid from the sum paid to the Administrator to acquire the business.

Either way, this snookers the Bulls as it inhibits planning/ signings for 2015 whilst doing nothing for them ending up in the Championship for 2015.

Indeed, things could be even worse IF the Club owes the owner anything and IF HE WOULD INTEND TO GET IT BACK OUT OF THE PARACHUTE PAYMENT.

Re: Marc Green statement / Appeal : Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:29 pm  

Wooden Stand wrote:

...
Even if it went the distance and the Bulls "won", I expect the outcome would NOT be 6 points back. More a case of the Court requiring a change in the RFL's FUTURE procedures so that it is In Future bound by precedent and, in particular, has to have a set points penalty for going into Administration and with a set scale of reduced points deduction based on the % owing to creditors repaid from the sum paid to the Administrator to acquire the business.

Absolutely not, the RFL is not some sort of public body, the Court will have zero interest in how it conducts its affairs or frames its rules in the future. You don't understand the nature of a civil case. A person sues another, claiming some civil wrong and seeking some civil remedy. That's it. If the dispute is based on rules, then that part will be about what the rules mean, and whether they have been correctly applied.

In this instance, the scope may be very limited. I don't of course know, as we haven't been told and no details made public, but as the Independent Panel refused to hear the appeal, then on the face of it, the High Court might simply be asked to consider the validity of that refusal; if the Bulls win, the logical outcome would be to simply order the Independent Panel to proceed to hear the Bulls' appeal.

Wooden Stand wrote:

...Indeed, things could be even worse IF the Club owes the owner anything and IF HE WOULD INTEND TO GET IT BACK OUT OF THE PARACHUTE PAYMENT.

Not sure what that even means. Seems to make no sense, and I don't see the connection.

Re: Marc Green statement / Appeal : Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:29 pm  

Wooden Stand wrote:

More a case of the Court requiring a change in the RFL's FUTURE procedures so that it is In Future bound by precedent and, in particular, has to have a set points penalty for going into Administration and with a set scale of reduced points deduction based on the % owing to creditors repaid from the sum paid to the Administrator to acquire the business.

That was dealt with in the RFL Policy Review and was part of the changes voted in by the clubs alongside the new league structure. I believe it is due to come into force from the start of next season.....

5.3.15 The current maximum sporting sanction, following an Insolvency Event, of 6 Super League/9 Championship points should be increased to a mandatory 12 Super League/18 Championship points. Board discretion to reduce this penalty on application from a club will be removed.