Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Fallout from Mason case on Kopczak signing


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#21 matt newsholme

matt newsholme
  • Coach
  • 896 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 06:40 PM

Didnt administration affect this?


Why would it? Players had valid contracts with old bulls club right upto point that sale to OK was agreed. Hudds approached kopczak and agreed deal with kopczak, breaking anti tampering rules ( never mind breaking the gentlemans agreement between clubs which is what the 20k fine RFL imposed was for). If they had waited til kopczak had refused to have contract tupe'd over to new company became a free agent, they wouldn't have an issue. Fact they didn't and also denied timing when questioned by RFL investigation suggests they'll face a fine at least.

#22 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,167 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:01 PM

Why would it? Players had valid contracts with old bulls club right upto point that sale to OK was agreed. Hudds approached kopczak and agreed deal with kopczak, breaking anti tampering rules ( never mind breaking the gentlemans agreement between clubs which is what the 20k fine RFL imposed was for). If they had waited til kopczak had refused to have contract tupe'd over to new company became a free agent, they wouldn't have an issue. Fact they didn't and also denied timing when questioned by RFL investigation suggests they'll face a fine at least.

Fair enough.



#23 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:40 PM

Why would it? Players had valid contracts with old bulls club right upto point that sale to OK was agreed. Hudds approached kopczak and agreed deal with kopczak, breaking anti tampering rules ( never mind breaking the gentlemans agreement between clubs which is what the 20k fine RFL imposed was for). If they had waited til kopczak had refused to have contract tupe'd over to new company became a free agent, they wouldn't have an issue. Fact they didn't and also denied timing when questioned by RFL investigation suggests they'll face a fine at least.


Not saying your wrong this is a genuine question but if all contracts were still valid why would there even need to be a gentlemans agreement.

#24 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,167 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 08:47 PM

Not saying your wrong this is a genuine question but if all contracts were still valid why would there even need to be a gentlemans agreement.

I was going to ask the same, but tbh I didn't really want to open a can of worms and go over this all again!



#25 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,045 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:56 PM

Kopcak signing for the Giants had been dealt with

#26 bobbruce

bobbruce
  • Coach
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 10:15 PM

Kopcak signing for the Giants had been dealt with


Looks like its been opened up again. It certainly needs looking into as they have now said in court he signed in August. Bradford in there press release are saying both Thewlis and Kopcak told a RFL investigation in October that he wasn't signed.

#27 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 06:22 PM

Kopcak signing for the Giants had been dealt with


This won't be about him signing for Davey's mob, but about the behaviour of the blithering idiots that Davey employs in their dealings with the RFL.

#28 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,045 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:14 AM

I hope that Davey realises he is employing some idiots in the management of the club, heads need to roll IMO

#29 scrape_goose

scrape_goose
  • Coach
  • 1,446 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 08:32 AM

Surely if a company goes into administration and is bought by new owners and a new company formed then teh contracts are not valid and employees have to negotiate a new contract with the new owners. Or am I been stupid?

#30 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:23 AM

 
Really?

Kopczack was apparently approached in August 2012 when his Bulls contract still had over 12mths to run. According to the rules below they could not approach him until May 1st 2013 unless they had the written consent of the Bulls. Not only are these the rules, but there was also a side agreement that all SL clubs would respect the Bulls and their players in our hour of need.
 

 

 

Doing my best to set aside my Huddersfield hat and trying to look at this from the point of view of someone with a mortgage to pay and a family to keep, Kopczak's employers entered administration in June.   He was very wise, at that point, to try and find a new job.  It's exactly what I would have done and to hell with the rules.  Keeping your family fed and warm comes first.

 

How sympathetic would his bank have been if he'd have claimed that he couldn't pay his mortgage because the company he worked for had gone #### up, but due to some daft quirk of the industry he's not allowed to find a new job for months?


That's me.  I'm done.


#31 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,045 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:26 AM

That's basically the crux isn't it

Yes his contract had 12 months to run but his company that held his contract didn't.

Like you I'd have gone job hunting at that point and no mistake - as I'm sure would anyone else

#32 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:28 AM

Surely if a company goes into administration and is bought by new owners and a new company formed then teh contracts are not valid and employees have to negotiate a new contract with the new owners. Or am I been stupid?

 

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees)

 

You get moved across under the terms of your old contract if you want to be.   It's an EU thing that protects employees from having their pay and conditions slashed when a company is taken over.   If it wasn't there, then you can reduce your wage bill by closing the company, and then immediately reopening it and re-employing people on lower wages.

 

I would imagine it's on the Tory hit list.


That's me.  I'm done.


#33 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:30 AM

And as for Keith Mason, if he's been treated badly he deserves every penny he gets.  From the media reports it seems the club stiffed him good and proper, so my view is good luck to the bloke and I hope he enjoys the payout.


That's me.  I'm done.


#34 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,045 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:34 AM

I hope he chokes on it
Maybe if he'd put in a decent performance in his last 6 months I'd have sympathy for him but before his sacking he was stealing a wage

#35 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:43 AM

 
Really?

Kopczack was apparently approached in August 2012 when his Bulls contract still had over 12mths to run. According to the rules below they could not approach him until May 1st 2013 unless they had the written consent of the Bulls. Not only are these the rules, but there was also a side agreement that all SL clubs would respect the Bulls and their players in our hour of need.

It seems to me, unless there's some fancy caveat in the appendix, that this is both a clear breach of the rules as set out, and dishonest with regard to the side agreement with all the other clubs.

>>>>>>>

APPROACHES TO/BY PLAYERS
C1:3:3(a) A Club or Licensed Agent or other person acting on a Club's behalf shall not approach any Fulltime Contracted Player directly or indirectly (which shall include statements made to the media) until 1st May prior to the date upon which the Player's contract is due to expire without receiving the prior written consent of the Club to whom the Player is contracted and such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Where such consent is withheld the Club wishing to make the approach may appeal to the RFL who shall be the final arbitrator. Both Clubs shall have the opportunity to make submissions to the RFL in the timescale set by the RFL. From 1st May prior to the expiry of his current contract any Club shall be entitled to enter into a contract with such Player subject to the compensation rules set out in these Operational Rules.
PLAYERS
Operational Rules – Section C1 - Players – Issue 11 – January 2013
( B) A Fulltime Contracted Player or anyone acting on his behalf shall not be entitled to approach another Club (the "Contacted Club") until 1st May prior to the expiry of his current contract and the Contacted Club shall not respond in any way whether directly or indirectly (which shall include statements made to the media) without first receiving the consent of such Player's Club and such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Where such consent is withheld the Player wishing to make the approach may appeal to the RFL who shall be the final arbitrator. Both Club and the Player shall have the opportunity to make submissions to the RFL in the timescale set by the RFL. From 1st May prior to the expiry of his current contract a Player shall be entitled to enter into a contract with a Club subject to the compensation rules set out in these Operational Rules.

>>>>>>>ignore smiley as it's defaulting out of the RFL text)

 

I wouldn't be happy with this if I was a player.    Personally, I wouldn't sign any contract that stopped me talking to potential employers whenever I liked. 

 

I'd be a bit surprised if this one stood up if a player wanted to challenge it, but I'm no employment lawyer.


That's me.  I'm done.


#36 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,045 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:45 AM

Under the circumstances he didn't have a job & IIRC wasn't being paid

Certainly he wasn't working under the contract conditions he agreed to

#37 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:51 AM

I hope he chokes on it
Maybe if he'd put in a decent performance in his last 6 months I'd have sympathy for him but before his sacking he was stealing a wage

 

I think he was underperforming, but the club should have handled it properly.

 

The upshot seems to be that the club is (probably) insured against the majority of the loss, it won't count on the salary cap after all, Keith Mason walks away from a job he obviously disliked with his mortgage paid and the club get rid of someone they no longer wished to employ.   A bit messy, but not the end of the world and actually, it more or less all comes good at the end.

 

As for Kopczak, I'll stick with my original point.    The Bulls were collapsing around him, he needed the security of a new job and went and got one.  He has a young family to feed and needs a steady and reliable wage.

 

http://www.thetelegr...re_hit_for_six/

 

 

What Kopczak certainly did not see coming was the financial meltdown which has left the Bulls fighting for their very existence.

“It’s been unbelievable really and we’ve been kept in the dark a lot of the time,” he said.

“My wife has been really supportive while I’ve been out injured and we’ve just been waiting really, that’s all we can do.

“It’s just about making sure that you get paid so that you can pay the bills.

That’s been the main worry, to make sure I can put food on the table. I’ve got a young family and there is uncertainty.

“Something might happen by the end of this week, it might not, but hopefully there will be a positive development.

 

No doubt in my mind that Kopczak did the right thing.   All the rest is piffle.


That's me.  I'm done.


#38 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:53 AM

Under the circumstances he didn't have a job & IIRC wasn't being paid

Certainly he wasn't working under the contract conditions he agreed to

 

In the world of procurement you can argue, generally succesfully, that persistent non-payment is a material breach of contract.  If he wasn't being paid, that might well have cancelled the contract and left him a free agent to talk to whoever he wanted to.   As I've said though, I know nothing of employment law.


That's me.  I'm done.


#39 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,045 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 10:01 AM

Having been in that situation where the company I worked for was going under and I wasn't being paid regularly or knew if I'd get paid again - I didn't hang around to see how it turned out

#40 Blotto

Blotto
  • Coach
  • 576 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 10:45 AM

Having been in that situation where the company I worked for was going under and I wasn't being paid regularly or knew if I'd get paid again - I didn't hang around to see how it turned out

At that point in time all the First Squad were being paid and their salaries guaranteed by the RFL by making up any shortfall the Administrator had, although there were a couple of times the money was delayed going in.

I think those Court revelations put Shudders in a bit of a precarious position with Sod Hall and also the Bulls would have a good case to renegotiate the fee the RFL imposed on them that Shudders paid!

Can you not hear the sound of Buck Passing, paper shredding and digital erasing?


If you like old type radio comedy/drama's etc listen to http://pumpkinfm.com/




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users