Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bulliac

Fallout from Mason case on Kopczak signing

99 posts in this topic

Seems that, as part of the defence of their case, both Kopczak and Thewliss [chief exec at Hudds] have said on oath, that he [Kopczak] had signed for Huddersfielsd in August last year. This directly contradicts what they were reported to have told the RFL in their enquiry into the signing last year. Trouble brewing methinks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems that, as part of the defence of their case, both Kopczak and Thewliss [chief exec at Hudds] have said on oath, that he [Kopczak] had signed for Huddersfielsd in August last year. This directly contradicts what they were reported to have told the RFL in their enquiry into the signing last year. Trouble brewing methinks?

 

Nah, its already been dealt with. Huddersfield paid Bradford 20k in compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to read some of the detail of the case.

 

Interesting to hear the salary cap discussed, as though it was actually being used - maybe these conspiracy theories are just that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interesting to read some of the detail of the case.

 

Interesting to hear the salary cap discussed, as though it was actually being used - maybe these conspiracy theories are just that?

Yeah although it was surprising that until Huddersfield sacked Mason they were running at 99.3% of full salary cap so early in the season.

On the Kopczak issue, its clear that despite what Bulls fans thought he didn't leave for financial reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah although it was surprising that until Huddersfield sacked Mason they were running at 99.3% of full salary cap so early in the season.

 

Wasn't that only if they kept Mason on? Thats how I read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't that only if they kept Mason on? Thats how I read it.

That's what I said !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I said !

 

So it was! 

 

I blame the heat, and England's batting order...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So it was! 

 

I blame the heat, and England's batting order...

 

Only just seen the Test score, so your excuse is valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Kopczak issue, its clear that despite what Bulls fans thought he didn't leave for financial reasons.

In what way - I haven't really read much about this angle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In what way - I haven't really read much about this angle?

Just the fact that his annual salary at Huddersfield was quoted in court as being £60k which is hardly mega-bucks, I'd have thought his new contract at Bradford (signed prior to them going into administration) was worth a similar figure at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Derwent - are you getting confused with Whitehead - who extended his contract around administration time?

Maybe, but the point still stands that Kopczak did not move to Huddersfield for a big financial gain if he is only on £60k there, as given in evidence to the tribunal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe, but the point still stands that Kopczak did not move to Huddersfield for a big financial gain if he is only on £60k there, as given in evidence to the tribunal.

To be fair, he may have only been on £40-45k at Bradford, and moving to a better team with a 50% pay rise is a good move in anyone's book!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, he may have only been on £40-45k at Bradford, and moving to a better team with a 50% pay rise is a good move in anyone's book!

 

Yeah, I'd go along with this. Fellow Bulls players also seem to think he went (primarily) for the cash, not just the fans btw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, I'd go along with this. Fellow Bulls players also seem to think he went (primarily) for the cash, not just the fans btw

Or you could take the opposite view that, if he did go for the money, bearing in mind that his new deal isn't massive then he was being grossly undervalued and underpaid at the Bulls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe. I don't particularly care. The point is, you can't say for sure that he didn't go for the money like you implied before.

 

(I should note, I genuinely don't care if he did or not. Water under the bridge and a lot of Bulls fans - not really on here - should let this go)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe. I don't particularly care. The point is, you can't say for sure that he didn't go for the money like you implied before.

 

(I should note, I genuinely don't care if he did or not. Water under the bridge and a lot of Bulls fans - not really on here - should let this go)

Well ok, but hold on a mo AA.

Here is a player under contract that has been illegally approached by another SL club. When questioned about it seemingly, and in line with the evidence just given in court, both the player and the club have given false statements to the governing body. Also, and as a direct result of this underhand arrangement, that player refused to play in the most important game of the season for us, and one which could of seen us reach the play-offs.

Regardless of the £20k compensation, which seems to be a non-prejudicial payment when we were on 'life support', there are definite issues for the SLE/RFL to take up with the Giants and Kopczack. We as a club have been taken to the sodding cleaners with Harris and more recently the Sky money, and for me the RFL need to take a strong line here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well ok, but hold on a mo AA.

Here is a player under contract that has been illegally approached by another SL club. When questioned about it seemingly, and in line with the evidence just given in court, both the player and the club have given false statements to the governing body. Also, and as a direct result of this underhand arrangement, that player refused to play in the most important game of the season for us, and one which could of seen us reach the play-offs.

Regardless of the £20k compensation, which seems to be a non-prejudicial payment when we were on 'life support', there are definite issues for the SLE/RFL to take up with the Giants and Kopczack. We as a club have been taken to the sodding cleaners with Harris and more recently the Sky money, and for me the RFL need to take a strong line here.

It wasn't illegal, it was a gentleman's agreement.

 

Very underhand, but not illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It wasn't illegal, it was a gentleman's agreement.

 

Very underhand, but not illegal.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didnt administration affect this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017