I wonder whether Wood and Rimmer have ever been to a Tribunal. I have, many times, and it can be a quite uncomfortable experience.



I find Rimmer's 'moral compass' comment frankly laughable. If an employee has been denied benefits to which his contract entitles him, there is absolutely no immorality in pursuing the employer who has broken the contract. Quite the reverse, in fact. The Tribunal will not concern itself with moral issues , only the legalities will matter.



The claimants will be represented by a barrister, possibly more than one, and the contradictions so apparent in the RFL's case will quickly be used to embarrass and discredit them. The only outcome I can foresee is significant costs and loss of credibility for the sport's governing body. I'd love to watch it, seeing those two squirm and bulls***t under oath would be well worth paying for.



But, assuming they are receiving some kind of legal advice themselves, it seems certain they will avoid this by agreeing a settlement, the terms of which will be confidential. Disappointing, but I can't see it going any other way

Quote ="HamsterChops"The only thing I can think of is if Chalmers and/or Lowe knew about the whole situation and deliberately waited until the old club was liquidated before starting a "new" club, instead of just taking over the old one, knowing they would be preferred bidders. Because it benefitted them in not having to take over expensive contracts that would have been protected by TUPE. Pure speculation, none of that is fact whatsoever. But it's the only way I can think the current club could be successfully sued as part of ">this.'" I could be wrong but I heard they put a bid in but it was turned down

Quote ="HamsterChops"The only thing I can think of is if Chalmers and/or Lowe knew about the whole situation and deliberately waited until the old club was liquidated before starting a "new" club, instead of just taking over the old one, knowing they would be preferred bidders. Because it benefitted them in not having to take over expensive contracts that would have been protected by TUPE. Pure speculation, none of that is fact whatsoever. But it's the only way I can think the current club could be successfully sued as part of ">this.'" I could be wrong but I heard they put a bid in but it was turned down

Quote ="HamsterChops"The only thing I can think of is if Chalmers and/or Lowe knew about the whole situation and deliberately waited until the old club was liquidated before starting a "new" club, instead of just taking over the old one, knowing they would be preferred bidders. Because it benefitted them in not having to take over expensive contracts that would have been protected by TUPE. Pure speculation, none of that is fact whatsoever. But it's the only way I can think the current club could be successfully sued as part of ">this.'" Another version of the RR 'moral compass'. Why pay up loyal members of staff when I can just wait 'til the club is liquidated and set the back on cheap.

Quote ="HamsterChops"The only thing I can think of is if Chalmers and/or Lowe knew about the whole situation and deliberately waited until the old club was liquidated before starting a "new" club, instead of just taking over the old one, knowing they would be preferred bidders. Because it benefitted them in not having to take over expensive contracts that would have been protected by TUPE. Pure speculation, none of that is fact whatsoever. But it's the only way I can think the current club could be successfully sued as part of ">this.'" Another version of the RR 'moral compass'. Why pay up loyal members of staff when I can just wait 'til the club is liquidated and set the back on cheap.

They did put a bid in but it was turned down by the administrator

Quote ="bullinenemyland"Yes, it followed my first question. His response was that due to the timing being so close to the start of the season it was unfair to ask a Champ 1 club who had geared up to that league being asked to move up. Season tickets had been sold, squads assembled and budgeted etc etc blah blah blah. Said it wasn't just his and Nigel Wood's decision but was agreed by the rest of the clubs. This was one of many contradicting statements throughout the night. One minute its the rule book, next when the rule book is not followed its the clubs, then a minute late he's back on the 10,000 page dossier that apparently states how all this is correct and just. Only problem with his original statement that it was unfair is that from recollection there were several clubs that came out and said they would step up to Championship if asked. Seems they didn't and chose the "dropped a b*llock" ">option.'" The 10000 pages is to try to prove (smokescreen) that every decision they made wasn't influenced by the conflict of interest they had due to Odsal. And also to try to cover themselves when they deviated from the rulebook (made stuff up). If it does get in front of a judge though, how many of those pages will mysteriously fall in the shredder?

Quote ="bullinenemyland"Yes, it followed my first question. His response was that due to the timing being so close to the start of the season it was unfair to ask a Champ 1 club who had geared up to that league being asked to move up. Season tickets had been sold, squads assembled and budgeted etc etc blah blah blah. Said it wasn't just his and Nigel Wood's decision but was agreed by the rest of the clubs. This was one of many contradicting statements throughout the night. One minute its the rule book, next when the rule book is not followed its the clubs, then a minute late he's back on the 10,000 page dossier that apparently states how all this is correct and just. Only problem with his original statement that it was unfair is that from recollection there were several clubs that came out and said they would step up to Championship if asked. Seems they didn't and chose the "dropped a b*llock" ">option.'" The 10000 pages is to try to prove (smokescreen) that every decision they made wasn't influenced by the conflict of interest they had due to Odsal. And also to try to cover themselves when they deviated from the rulebook (made stuff up). If it does get in front of a judge though, how many of those pages will mysteriously fall in the shredder?

They really do make it up as they go along.

So all new teams must start in the lowest league, unless you are the Bulls?



I don’t know how he could stand there and say all this. Does he actually believe they followed this mysterious “rule book”?



I’m intrigued to know where in the rules it says that new teams should maybe not start in bottom depending on the whim of the RFL or whether they have a Summer Bash to sell tickets for.

It will be in a hastily written appendix that they will be staining with tea right now to make it look like it’s always been there...



Bunch of clowns.