amberavenger wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s particularly harsh for any new owners to be punished for the sins of the past, and I’m not saying that in law they are liable for anything, (when it comes down to it I think the old owners and RFL are more answerable) but it’s utterly ridiculous to say this isn’t a continuation of the old “brand” when everyone knows it is, except perhaps in law. Then again the law is an ass.
I don't think it's harsh at all, and I can see exactly where Cramer is coming from - the new ownership benefited directly from the old club in terms of goodwill, supporters and benefactors, existing sponsorship opportunities, a place to play, a league to play in and the opportunity to pick up players who had no other means of finding employment so close to the season and after all the other clubs had filled their salary caps.
If any of us started a new company tomorrow, we'd have to go out and earn all of that goodwill and status over time.
I think there's a good chance of him making a successful argument in court and I hope this comes back to bite the RFL and their surrogates ChaLo royally in the backside!
The whole process stank to high heaven and IF there were bids to keep the Bulls going, exiting administration rather than liquidation rejected by the RFL effectively making them worthless to the administrator - then some chickens ought to come home to roost.
Most of all, I hope the lads who lost their jobs or had to accept reduced deals at the Bulls and elsewhere leaving them worse off and maybe even struggling financially by the whole sorry process get something back - I really do.
