Me neither but Franny lost his job and may have a case...who knows.

In one. We've got it and you can't have it back !! The payments were obviously made during the period that the club announced it was going into administration and it being ratified in court a week or so later. No payments are legally allowed during that period.

Personally I would let them in, on the proviso one of them brings the deeds to B.V back.

I was under the impression that Franny Stephenson declined the offer of a job under the new regime. If that is the case I don't see how he would have a case, as for the Richardson / Maskill's if they were listed as directors or board members then surely they would be limited to any action they could take.

The Richardsons trying it on, whatever next

It must have been a difficult post for you to compose, 12 little words and you still had to edit it

As much as vastman's rant about the righting of wrongs and people who have been badly treated deserving their day in court may feel like natural justice, in my experience, employment law is far from that eutopian state; just about anyone who loses their job or even leaves of their own accord thesedays can, if they're that way inclined, bring a claim to the Employment Tribunal and more often than not, those claims are accepted by the Tribunal and have to be dealt with, spurious or otherwise.



Defending an ET claim is a costly, stressful and extremely onerous task for any employer, particularly small to medium companies or sole traders who almost certainly won't have the expertise in-house, and there's a whole industry of 'employment advisors' and similar odious legal types who know that and will represent these claimants on a no win no fee basis, knowing full well that most employers will offer to pay something due to the nuisance value, even if they know they haven't done anything wrong. Many people say they want to fight the claim 'on principle', until they realise that having principles costs a serious amount of cash.



In short - if you were a Richardson clan member and you went to an 'employent advisor' and told them what had happened during and after the takeover, they'd be filling out an ET1 before you could blink; whether the claims have any merit remains to be seen, but you can bet your backside that defending them will be a massive distraction from the business in hand. This mind you, from the people who said not so long ago that everything they'd ever done had been in the best interests of Wakefield Trinity.

In my work experience,it's supriseing how many get rewarded for failure.

[size=150YAWN[/size whatever - patronising - self serving - Tory - bore





B*llocks, you mean it stops greedy employers (99%) exploiting their employees - disgusting attitude.



For Little Waynes benefit my computers knackered hence the edits.

ha ha ha hilarious - no really - you are a very funny guy.

Stop it vasty, you can do better than that - last week you were the lord of the manor, talking down to the lower classes, this week you're a militant prole, defending the rights of the oppressed working man!



Unlike your good self, I'm actually speaking from experience, rather than just spouting the opposite of what other people say and passing it of as my opinion.

The problem with most issues of this nature these days is that whenever the lawmakers try to make the filing of claims more open and accessible for genuine claimants, they also open the door to the dishonest ones. As you've stated, depending on the size of the claim, it's often better for an employer to concede, rather than contest. Sadly, the genuine claimants and the dishonest ones get lumped together as far as public perception of the matter is concerned. Without full possession of the facts, though, it would be wrong for anyone here to assume any claim by former employees is dishonest or otherwise, until all the facts are known.