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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much it really

Some other fans quickly forget their own recent history though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Were there many calls for a level playing field at all, Genuine question, I don't remember any.

 

I remember lots of Fans wanting Wigans blood a couple of times, also a lot of whinging and moaning about London over the years,

As i say such is the Rugby league fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't lump yourself with Trinity. We earned our place, and retained it time and again on the pitch.

 

I rest my case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were there many calls for a level playing field at all, Genuine question, I don't remember any.

 

 

None, as far as I recall.

 

Fact is, there's no "RL family" to speak of.  It's as brutal a business off the field as on it, and the clubs will eat each other to get ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bulls as is have absolutely no right, reason or claim to any more money whatsoever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need the money though Ant. If the rumours are correct they are struggling to pay their players..................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish Ant would use his head. Og course Bradford have a very good case for compensation, a player admitted to lying about being approached-end of case. Has I have written before why didn't whoever was advising him just ask for a transfer, and not attempt to find a loophole in a system which was brought in to protect workers, when a new employer has taken over their contract. As fares I am aware no new employer has failed in this law. Trust Rugby League, supposedly the working mans game attempt to break a system which was set up for the protection of workers. A sad business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The company that employed CK no longer exists

The current bulls have absolutely ZERO claim on CK or his contract.

End of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple facts are that the Bulls were in receivership, and players  contracts were being dealt with by the receiver. The main assets the receiver could sell were the playing staff, and the money paid by the buyer was to retrieve  the playing staff. Besides getting the players the buyer has too receive only half Sky monies and the other half shared out between the SL clubs.

All the SL clubs made a deal where they wouldn't negotiate to buy Bulls players until they came out of liquidation, where Huddersfield come in. It turns out that they had made an agreement with Kopczak to pay him a higher salary and extension of contract a full month before the Bulls came out of receivership. The buyer was under the impression that he held all the players contracts, certainly this was based on the receiver information who had managed the payments of salary.

Unfortunately Huddersfield at no time informed the receiver they had done a deal with an individual player, and presumably because at the time Super League did their enquiry discover that a secret deal had been done, and while the new owner of Bulls had a legitimate complaint the SL in their wisdom suggested Huddersfield pay 20k which in the circumstances as there was no evidence of a deal being made the summ of money paid would appease Bradford.

Sorry, very far from end of story, and there is no way can anybody make up there own rules on contractual law, although over the years I have seen many attempts at bending the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The company that employed CK no longer exists

The current bulls have absolutely ZERO claim on CK or his contract.

End of story.

Reminds me of Huddersfield Giants' claim to the Fartown history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's longer than Wakefields history if we use your own criteria.

As for this affair, either the Giants will have more to pay to the Bulls - VERY unlikely as the current Bulls have nothing to do with it whatsoever, and less the £20k the Giants payed voluntarily.

They'll get a hand slap from the RFL and told not to do what every club in the game has done at some point or other.

OR

the RFL will look at it and decide the whole affair is an employment law minefield and any censure whatsoever will be a restraint of trade

The Bulls taking the moral high ground is hilarious though, as is any other club to be honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, employment law is very far from being a minefield, well I was employed 20 years in it, and there is plenty of case law to cover the majority of cases, and the new owner of the Bulls must feel a little sick knowing that the assets he was supposedly paying out for had been stolen from him. Even worse is that the Giants receive a monthly  percentage of the Sky money that the Bulls have deducted as do the other SL clubs. That is for next year as well. That money which is deducted should have been used for youth development, instead of swelling the funds of SL clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, employment law is very far from being a minefield, well I was employed 20 years in it, and there is plenty of case law to cover the majority of cases, and the new owner of the Bulls must feel a little sick knowing that the assets he was supposedly paying out for had been stolen from him. Even worse is that the Giants receive a monthly  percentage of the Sky money that the Bulls have deducted as do the other SL clubs. That is for next year as well. That money which is deducted should have been used for youth development, instead of swelling the funds of SL clubs.

 

 I notice you have not shown much concern for, or written much about all the  small companies who were aledgedly left unpaid by the Bulls, Wouldn't any money forthcoming be usable for those people.

 

I believe if the Giants are found to have done wrong they will no doubt be brought to book, But you would have a very hard time convincing me that there is a club in existence that hasn't done exactly the same,with regards to illegally approaching players, Inc Bradford.

 

And again going back to the time Bradford were sweeping all before them with a team full of New Zealand internationals and Harris ( The main reason the Bulls got into trouble )Youth development didn't seem to be very high on the agenda.

 

Really the Bulls should be in clover but for rank bad management, However that's not your fault and i hope for the bulls fans sake that something is worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice you have not shown much concern for, or written much about all the  small companies who were aledgedly left unpaid by the Bulls, Wouldn't any money forthcoming be usable for those people.

 

I believe if the Giants are found to have done wrong they will no doubt be brought to book, But you would have a very hard time convincing me that there is a club in existence that hasn't done exactly the same,with regards to illegally approaching players, Inc Bradford.

 

And again going back to the time Bradford were sweeping all before them with a team full of New Zealand internationals and Harris ( The main reason the Bulls got into trouble )Youth development didn't seem to be very high on the agenda.

 

Really the Bulls should be in clover but for rank bad management, However that's not your fault and i hope for the bulls fans sake that something is worked out.

This subject isn't really about Bradford, it's about the Giants and their conduct.

I'm sorry but the bit in bold is just laughable and I can't see how it links to this. However, we produced, and still are producing, more than our fair share of players, and good ones too. If you look closely you'll find five of them in your own team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017