Re: Bradford redundencies : Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:26 pm  

Fax Machine wrote:

One thing to remember though is that if someone wants to buy out a company they often insist that all staff are first made redundant. They can then, if they wish, re-employ those employees without inheriting the redundancy liabilities.

But surely there wouldn't be redundancy liabilities if they didn't make them redundant? If they've done this, one would presume it's so they can renegotiate their salaries downwards, which is something they might not accept.

There is no hint from the administrator that this is the reason either. They are making it out to be a result of no buyer being found.

Bad times for the Bulls. Who are they playing this weekend? Might be in for a massive scoreline if it's someone decent.

Re: Bradford redundencies : Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:27 pm  

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about do you?

[SouthStander.com]

Re: Bradford redundencies : Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:28 pm  

It sounds as though the administrators are reducing the ongoing liabilities of the company so as to make it more appealing to a potential buyer.

Re: Bradford redundencies : Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:29 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

What should the RFL have done? Kicked them out of SL and forced them into Administration earlier?

Ultimately yes, why not? Whoever got the place could pick up a lot of their playing staff. Obviously there could be a period of negotiation and discussion about the state of the club, but if they couldn't resolve them, they shouldn't have been in SL.

If a club has no future, what is the point in allowing it to wrack up massive losses and debts and then collapse mid season in a massive PR faux pas for the sport?

[Nat (Rugby_Aholic)]

Re: Bradford redundencies : Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:33 pm  

Charlie Sheen wrote:

Its miss management on Bradford's part. What are the RFL suppose to do?

If only there was a process whereby a governing body could audit a club/business's financial records to determine its ability to support a team for the next say...three years....and then award some kind of license. Perhaps there could be three grades used to demonstrate the strength of the club.

Re: Bradford redundencies : Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:39 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

But surely there wouldn't be redundancy liabilities if they didn't make them redundant? If they've done this, one would presume it's so they can renegotiate their salaries downwards, which is something they might not accept.

There is no hint from the administrator that this is the reason either. They are making it out to be a result of no buyer being found.

Bad times for the Bulls. Who are they playing this weekend? Might be in for a massive scoreline if it's someone decent.

If someone bought Bradford Bulls and didn't manage to make a go of it they would then be stuck with all employer liabilities.

The TUPE laws may cover this but I'm not too sure how these apply when a company has actally been liquidated as the new company is a totally seperate entity.

I wasn't saying that this is part of a masterplan, just that it is not definitely "The Final Countdown".

[SouthStander.com]

Re: Bradford redundencies : Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:40 pm  

Saddened! wrote: Ultimately yes, why not? Whoever got the place could pick up a lot of their playing staff. Obviously there could be a period of negotiation and discussion about the state of the club, but if they couldn't resolve them, they shouldn't have been in SL. If a club has no future, what is the point in allowing it to wrack up massive losses and debts and then collapse mid season in a massive PR faux pas for the sport? If the criteria for kicking a club out of Super League was making losses year-on-year then you may need to look a little closer to home!

Saddened! wrote: Ultimately yes, why not? Whoever got the place could pick up a lot of their playing staff. Obviously there could be a period of negotiation and discussion about the state of the club, but if they couldn't resolve them, they shouldn't have been in SL. If a club has no future, what is the point in allowing it to wrack up massive losses and debts and then collapse mid season in a massive PR faux pas for the sport? If the criteria for kicking a club out of Super League was making losses year-on-year then you may need to look a little closer to home!

Re: Bradford redundencies : Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:43 pm  

SouthStander.com wrote: If the criteria for kicking a club out of Super League was making losses year-on-year then you may need to look a little closer to home! Quite.

SouthStander.com wrote: If the criteria for kicking a club out of Super League was making losses year-on-year then you may need to look a little closer to home! Quite.

Re: Bradford redundencies : Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:45 pm  

SouthStander.com wrote:

It sounds as though the administrators are reducing the ongoing liabilities of the company so as to make it more appealing to a potential buyer.

Spot on!

Equally, all the non-playing staff, to the administrator, are just wage burdens at this stage and not assets. As such, you can't sell them, so retaining their employment would be foolish for them personally (so they can look for another job) and for the administrator. If Newco comes in, they can either re-employ them or not. The players however, have a potential asset sale value so it is currently worth keeping them employed until you can establish if indeed anyone is willing to pay money to absolutely guarantee their services as a player (as opposed to taking your chances) and then make any remaining players redundant a short time after.

This is the way it goes!

I hope a Newco is gearing up, it would be a shame for the fans & the RL to see the Bulls die!

Re: Bradford redundencies : Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:46 pm  

Fax Machine wrote:

If someone bought Bradford Bulls and didn't manage to make a go of it they would then be stuck with all employer liabilities.

The TUPE laws may cover this but I'm not too sure how these apply when a company has actally been liquidated as the new company is a totally seperate entity.

I wasn't saying that this is part of a masterplan, just that it is not definitely "The Final Countdown".

There is a precedent at Wakefield. The Richardsons were made redundant by the administrator and not re-employed by the newco. The family then tried to claim against the newco and untimately gave up.