Send Luke O'Donnell off!! That should do the trick

I have sympathy because I dont expect him to be an expert on TUPE and employment law any more than I and many of us are. He's bound to be heavily reliant on the advice that he's receiving from his agent. Given the background this season, wages being paid late (and his employer at the time not thinking that was a big deal), he probably dosent know the new owner from Adam, the continuing uncertainty over the Bulls status etc I can imagine that trust is at a premium just now. If his agent said "you need to do this" then it doesnt surprise me that he did.



I've been involved in a situation where my employer has been taken over and it created a huge amount of uncertainty. Mutual trust disappears. People tend to take decisions over thei future employment seemingly as much to end the uncertainty as anything.

thanks for your concern, but im a hull fc fan





as for points deduction, hudds would/should get them form making an illegal approach to a bulls player after all the clubs agreed not to approach player contracted beyond 2012! looks like somebody went against that agreement as giants fans were claiming they had signed kopzack before the OK takeover

I agree. The RL should fine all clubs on the back of fans' rumours.

I understand that you are a solicitor so maybe you can clarify something from a legal standpoint ?



How can a "club" hold a player's registration when the "club" does not exist as a legal entity or recognised employer and is, as has been argued on here, merely a brand name ? Surely the registration is (was) held by the company as the "club" could not have employees ?

Thats what I don't get, how can a club cease so doesn't have to honour all it's debts but the new club claims to still hold player contracts?

Gi4nts



This has been explained numerous times in greater detail than I will put here – but the basics are:



EDITED AGAIN TO BE MORE ACCURATE:

What you know to as Bradford Bulls never owed any debt. The players (contracts)/staff (contracts)/name/logo/history/agreements (for things like playing at Odsal)/Licence with the RFL and a whole host of other stuff you probably consider as "The Bulls" were infact (in a business sense) assets of the Bradford Bulls Holding company. The debts were not held by the assets they were also held by the holding company.



When the holding company went bust the assets were bought by a new company (OK Bulls limited) - but that company did not buy all the debts too. That is why they get the player contracts (as long as the players don't pull out under TUPE rules) but not the debts.



EDIT: Also, the player registration with the RFL is not a legal issue (as far as I'm aware) and is just something that the RFL run to prevent players being poached from clubs (as trade restriction laws prevent them from stopping you signing someone but they can set rules saying you can't play that person) - as such they can set any rules they wish as to who holds the registration.



I may be totally wrong on the reason for the player registration - but thats always why I have presumed it exists.

That's what I don't get. How can a club, who has promised not to talk to any contracted Bradford players, still manage to talk to contracted Bradford players?

Now you'll be confusing Mr 4ants..

Did they promise not to talk to them, or promise not to approach them ? If its the latter and the player's agent approached them then.......

If that's the case there could be a counter-argument that an organisation which is not an RFL member can not hold the playing registration. At the point of sale BBHL ceased to be members of the RFL. Have OK Bulls been officially ratified as a member of the RFL yet ?