Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Fallout from Mason case on Kopczak signing


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#41 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 11:32 AM

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?

 

I'm not a contract lawyer, but I think in the world of procurement a company that paid late because it was in financial difficulties would be in breach of contract and a supplier could just walk away there and then.    I can't see why a person under contract to a rugby club would be any different, but I may be wrong.


That's me.  I'm done.


#42 GIANTSTRIDES

GIANTSTRIDES
  • Coach
  • 1,608 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 11:54 AM

This will just rumble on in the same old way, The Giants haters on here ( every club has some ) will come on giving all sorts of reason why we should be hauled over the coals, We certainly got what we deserved with regards to Mason, The RFL in their infinite wisdom will decide on the Kopczak thing.

 Myself i thought that once a club went into admin contracts were void , I agree with S May that just about any player would have done what Kopczak did in ensuring he could provide for his family. All that said ,If the Giants broke the rules then they will no doubt pay a price.

 What i find amusing is Many Bulls fans (not on here) are going on as if there club have always been whiter than white. They have had a lot of help from many directions in their time of need ,Yet some of their fans can't wait to get the knife in.

 Such is the rugby league fan.


Dont expect anything from a pig but a grunt

#43 Konkrete

Konkrete
  • Coach
  • 2,026 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:11 PM

 

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


All fair points, and all irrelevant.

1. Have the Giants illegally approached a player under the rules of governance? Yes, it seems so.
2. Have the Giants illegally approached a player under the gentlemen's side agreement? Yes, it seems so.
3. Have the Giants told an untruth to the governing body when investigated? Yes, it seems so.
4. Has the player told an untruth to the governing body when investigated? Yes, it seems so.
5. Have the Giants illeagally dismissed a player in connection with this signing? Yes.

This scenario needs to be judged by the rules and agreements as set out. Anything else is piffle.
Integrity is shown when no-one is looking.

#44 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,177 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:28 PM

1. We don't know
2. We don't know
3. We don't know
4. We don't know
5. Yes.

The Bulls got what they deserved, and a payout from the Giants that didn't need to be paid

The giants got what they deserved too.

#45 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:28 PM

 

All fair points, and all irrelevant.

1. Have the Giants illegally approached a player under the rules of governance? Yes, it seems so.
2. Have the Giants illegally approached a player under the gentlemen's side agreement? Yes, it seems so.
3. Have the Giants told an untruth to the governing body when investigated? Yes, it seems so.
4. Has the player told an untruth to the governing body when investigated? Yes, it seems so.
5. Have the Giants illeagally dismissed a player in connection with this signing? Yes.

This scenario needs to be judged by the rules and agreements as set out. Anything else is piffle.

 

 

1.  Not necessarily - the argument I'm making is that he was not under contract to the Bulls therefore any approach at any time was legal.

2.  I would have told the Bulls to get lost on this because he wasn't a Bulls player, but the answer is yes. 

3.  Not necessarily - it depends on the answer to part 1 and what the actual question asked was in the investigation.

4.  Not necessarily - it depends on the answer to part 1 and what the actual question asked was in the investigation.

5.  No, not in connection with this signing.   Sacking Mason illegally wasn't anything to do with this.

 

 

This scenario needs to judged by the rules and agreements as set out in law.  Anything else is piffle.


That's me.  I'm done.


#46 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,177 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:34 PM

Piffle is right

Then again, it's rare for a bulls fan to speak anything but IMO

#47 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,091 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:39 PM

Well constructed posts from Steve as ever. What about the issue of a player and a club saying one thing to the RFL and another under oath though?
The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#48 MrPosh

MrPosh
  • Coach
  • 3,147 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:43 PM

1.  Not necessarily - the argument I'm making is that he was not under contract to the Bulls therefore any approach at any time was legal.
2.  I would have told the Bulls to get lost on this because he wasn't a Bulls player, but the answer is yes. 
3.  Not necessarily - it depends on the answer to part 1 and what the actual question asked was in the investigation.
4.  Not necessarily - it depends on the answer to part 1 and what the actual question asked was in the investigation.
5.  No, not in connection with this signing.   Sacking Mason illegally wasn't anything to do with this.
 
 
This scenario needs to judged by the rules and agreements as set out in law.  Anything else is piffle.


I believe that the Bulls were in administration at the date Kopczak agreed to join Hudds. None of the players contracts had become void at that point and I don't think that late payment is enough grounds for employee contracts to become void.

Of course the law should take precedence, but there are still competition rules that need to be followed.

For what it's worth, I don't think that Bradford or the fans should be looking to pursue this (and I don't think they are). Everybody is quite right that the club received more than enough from the game as a whole last year and arguing some minor points would be churlish.

However, if I were the RFL, I would not be happy if Huddersfield has lied.
People called Romans they go the house

#49 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,177 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 01:01 PM

As Steve says, it depends what they were asked

If I were being cynical I think at the time both the RFL and the Giants knew it was hazy ground - hence the "voluntary" £20000 fee that was paid

If I were being REALLY cynical then I'd say this will be far from the first or last time such a thing has happened.

#50 Konkrete

Konkrete
  • Coach
  • 2,026 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 01:16 PM

 

1.  Not necessarily - the argument I'm making is that he was not under contract to the Bulls therefore any approach at any time was legal.
2.  I would have told the Bulls to get lost on this because he wasn't a Bulls player, but the answer is yes. 
3.  Not necessarily - it depends on the answer to part 1 and what the actual question asked was in the investigation.
4.  Not necessarily - it depends on the answer to part 1 and what the actual question asked was in the investigation.
5.  No, not in connection with this signing.   Sacking Mason illegally wasn't anything to do with this.
 
 
This scenario needs to judged by the rules and agreements as set out in law.  Anything else is piffle.


I'm glad you agree. This has to be looked at against the prevailing rules and agreements as laid out. Your inital argument in an earlier post was a gushing moralistic sob story of why Kopczack and the Giants had every right to act as they wished regardless of what rules and agreements were in place.

What we know as fact is that both Kopczack and the Giants gave different evidence to the governing body and to the law courts. The evidence given under oath, and which is therefore likely to be the correct version, contradicts the evidence given to the governing body when under investigation.

It doesn't matter that it's the Giants, it could easily be the other way around.

Here is the report from the court case including the Judge's comment.

'The player also said he thought the timing of his sacking was suspect, as several props had been signed over the summer.

He claimed he had been given the push to free up space in the salary cap for the new players – an accusation his former club flatly denied.

But the judge, Mr Justice Saffman, said there was "clear evidence" the Giants wanted Mason off their books, including emails outlining lucrative transfers to coax the prop away from his team.

Edited by Konkrete, 23 July 2013 - 02:43 PM.

Integrity is shown when no-one is looking.

#51 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,177 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 01:20 PM

The players comments are irrelevant

The judges aren't

But the signing of KC and the sacking of mason aren't related that directly.

Mason was garbage for us in his last season and I suspect wanted out - he probably just couldn't get the deal he wanted

#52 Steve May

Steve May
  • Coach
  • 10,111 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:29 PM

 

I'm glad you agree. This has to be looked at against the prevailing rules and agreements as laid out. You're inital argument in an earlier post was a gushing moralistic sob story of why Kopczack and the Giants had every right to act as they wished regardless of what rules and agreements were in place.
 

 

 

I don't know about the Giants actions, but I reckon a man has a right to earn a secure living in his chosen profession and ought not to be at the whim of a faintly ridiculous rule that prevents him from getting a new job when his old one has gone to ######.


That's me.  I'm done.


#53 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,091 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:39 PM

Steve's blindspot when it comes to Huddersfield is laughable.
The Unicorn is not a Goose,

#54 Konkrete

Konkrete
  • Coach
  • 2,026 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:43 PM

 

I don't know about the Giants actions, but I reckon a man has a right to earn a secure living in his chosen profession and ought not to be at the whim of a faintly ridiculous rule that prevents him from getting a new job when his old one has gone to ######.

Agreed. However, those rules are in place and are there to protect the players and the clubs. Also, Kopczack's job had not gone to #####, he was being paid and his contract was safe, just like all the other players who were being protected by the Administrator.

If he wanted out then fine, he and the Giants should have gone about it the right way. As it stands at the moment the evidence suggests rather strongly that they've both acted against the Bulls, the rules of the RFL, the RFL investigation and the other 12 SL clubs.
Integrity is shown when no-one is looking.

#55 GIANTSTRIDES

GIANTSTRIDES
  • Coach
  • 1,608 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 03:13 PM

I believe that the Bulls were in administration at the date Kopczak agreed to join Hudds. None of the players contracts had become void at that point and I don't think that late payment is enough grounds for employee contracts to become void.

Of course the law should take precedence, but there are still competition rules that need to be followed.

For what it's worth, I don't think that Bradford or the fans should be looking to pursue this (and I don't think they are). Everybody is quite right that the club received more than enough from the game as a whole last year and arguing some minor points would be churlish.

However, if I were the RFL, I would not be happy if Huddersfield has lied.

That's a fair and reasonable post and like you i feel if the Giants have been found to have lied, then they will receive punishment accordingly. However if they do it will not satisfy some.


Dont expect anything from a pig but a grunt

#56 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,177 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 05:19 PM

Pretty much it really

Some other fans quickly forget their own recent history though

#57 indomitable

indomitable
  • Coach
  • 299 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 05:30 PM

20 years ago I was working for one of this country's largest unions dealing with Transfer of Undertakings, which is what covered the Bulls final movements. I never had one boss fail to honour a workers contract when they bought out a company, and never refused to take on an individual who they considered too highly paid. I was ashamed when Kopczak walked out on the Bulls and failed to honour his part of the agreement. If he wanted a move why could he not just ask for a transfer?

The 20K amount settled by the RL was derisory, and now we discover a gentleman's agreement was broken and individuals prepared to lie about it. Yes a contract was broken and I am surprised that individuals will stoop so low to get out of paying a transfer fee.

Now the League are changing the numbers in the top echelons, and London are asking quite rightly for a level playing field. How can that be achieved if Bradford are only to go on receiving half their Sky monies and the rest shared between the other clubs. Also no one has ever clarified why this huge amount is being taken from the Bulls, It is about time the people who administer the Super League fully explained themselves, although I doubt they ever will.



#58 GIANTSTRIDES

GIANTSTRIDES
  • Coach
  • 1,608 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 05:46 PM

20 years ago I was working for one of this country's largest unions dealing with Transfer of Undertakings, which is what covered the Bulls final movements. I never had one boss fail to honour a workers contract when they bought out a company, and never refused to take on an individual who they considered too highly paid. I was ashamed when Kopczak walked out on the Bulls and failed to honour his part of the agreement. If he wanted a move why could he not just ask for a transfer?

The 20K amount settled by the RL was derisory, and now we discover a gentleman's agreement was broken and individuals prepared to lie about it. Yes a contract was broken and I am surprised that individuals will stoop so low to get out of paying a transfer fee.

Now the League are changing the numbers in the top echelons, and London are asking quite rightly for a level playing field. How can that be achieved if Bradford are only to go on receiving half their Sky monies and the rest shared between the other clubs. Also no one has ever clarified why this huge amount is being taken from the Bulls, It is about time the people who administer the Super League fully explained themselves, although I doubt they ever will.

 

Didn't Huddersfield and Wakefield go through the same thing regading Sky moneys at some point ?, or have i just imadgined that, The old memory aint what it was.


Dont expect anything from a pig but a grunt

#59 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,177 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 06:27 PM

Yes both Huddersfield and Wakefield got LESS money than the bulls in their promotion seasons

#60 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,091 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 06:41 PM

Yes both Huddersfield and Wakefield got LESS money than the bulls in their promotion seasons


Please don't lump yourself with Trinity. We earned our place, and retained it time and again on the pitch.
The Unicorn is not a Goose,