Re: Court. : Sun Jul 20, 2014 8:53 pm  

roofaldo2 wrote:

Your club illegally terminated a player's contract so that they could open enough salary cap space to allow them to illegally approach one of our players.

That's solid fact and you attempting to take the moral high ground against Bradford just makes you look incredibly stupid.

Terminated players contract yup, paid for it in court but didnt bring Bradford into it or try pass the blame to anyone else unlike other clubs!! Illegal approach nah a gentlemans agreement doesnt constitute an illegal approach in my eyes anyway. Now wheredo we start with the Bulls a club who have done no wrong? broke salary cap when winning trophies? left creditors out of pocket by winding up the company and taking new name? twice!!!! Cant say the debts die with the old club but all the assets transfer. Firms would do it weekly

Re: Court. : Sun Jul 20, 2014 8:59 pm  

Rarebreed wrote:

There you go again, who's blamed you? Every other SL club took £100k of our central distribution share, so what makes you special? Yes we know about the Kop situation, so don't feel guilty about that. You may have paid us a token amount, due to embarrassment, but don't think anymore about it.
As for dragging your clubs name through the mud, can we also leave that to you. I can't remember anyone having a go at the Giants, you personally perhaps, but you lead with your chin, don't you?

Maybe you need to have a read thru your forum if you think your fans havent dissed the Giants!!

Re: Court. : Sun Jul 20, 2014 9:06 pm  

FLYINGPROP wrote:

Maybe you need to have a read thru your forum if you think your fans havent dissed the Giants!!

Oh my god grow up!! I've a lot of time for Huddersfield and their fans, but people like you are just pathetic and an embarrassment to the club.

[Bulliac]

Re: Court. : Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:49 am  

FLYINGPROP wrote:

Terminated players contract yup, paid for it in court but didnt bring Bradford into it or try pass the blame to anyone else unlike other clubs!! Illegal approach nah a gentlemans agreement doesnt constitute an illegal approach in my eyes anyway. Now wheredo we start with the Bulls a club who have done no wrong? broke salary cap when winning trophies? left creditors out of pocket by winding up the company and taking new name? twice!!!! Cant say the debts die with the old club but all the assets transfer. Firms would do it weekly

Actually, firms do do it weekly and there is a whole raft of insolvency laws set up just for the purpose. There are also lots of receivers and administrators who make a good living out of..ermm well, administering it. These people don't just pop up when a rugby club hits the buffers you know, it's their regular five days a week, full time job.

Incidentally the illegal approach was admitted by Hudds, in court, and under oath during the Keith Mason's case against the Giants. When Kopczac's signing was used, by Mason, the date of it, given under oath, was well before the one that Hudds gave the RFL in their 'inquiry' and well before his contract at Bradford became susceptible to the TUPE regulations. Why they felt unable to give the same date to the RFL is obviously open to speculation, since the RFL seems to have turned a blind eye to this well publicised discrepancy.

However, let's draw a line under it, it's all water under the bridge now and as my old [and long dead] grandfather always used to say, "there are worse things happen at sea". Good luck for the play-offs.

Re: Court. : Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:12 pm  

Anyway, appeal now officially called off.

________________________________

Line drawn.





Ha! Fat chance

Re: Court. : Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:13 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Anyway, appeal now officially called off.

________________________________

Line drawn.





Ha! Fat chance

Genuine question. In the interview I have read it was stated they thought they had a really strong case, but they have dropped it as not wanting to spend money on the past (I am paraphrasing) I always thought if the bulls had won then costs would have been paid by RFL?
Is that correct

Re: Court. : Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:31 pm  

Ferdy wrote:

Genuine question. In the interview I have read it was stated they thought they had a really strong case, but they have dropped it as not wanting to spend money on the past (I am paraphrasing) I always thought if the bulls had won then costs would have been paid by RFL?
Is that correct

Basically, yes, although usually it won't cover all the actual costs, by some margin.

Re: Court. : Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:44 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Basically, yes, although usually it won't cover all the actual costs, by some margin.

Thanks that clears it up. I was thinking that they didn't have a case at all as if the other side pay the costs they might as well have gone for it. But that makes sense no point being out of pocket when the money could be used for next year.

Would be interested to know what grounds they were going for in the appeal. States the initial appeal was through flawed RFL policy and the second was legally incorrect?

Re: Court. : Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:13 pm  

Apparently we are going to use the money to appeal the decision on the Joynt tackle

Re: Court. : Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:18 pm  

rugbyreddog wrote:

Apparently we are going to use the money to appeal the decision on the Joynt tackle

like!!!

Reads to me as if they are satisfied to stir the RFL up into reviewing their club insolvency procedures, but havent got much support from the other RFL clubs (who all have sugar daddies so no issue for them (until their sugar daddy dies of a heart attack and the widow says I want my money) so quite rightly want to focus on whats on the table in front of them. More props, hopefully.