Re: Court. : Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:53 pm  

So imagine this scenario, the case we have revolves around 'promises' the RFL gave to BBB2014, which they subsequently went back on, for whatever reason. The organising body would be shown to be colluding against the registered and approved owner. Great example of leadership and governance in the sport. We'll soon know if that's the case, as there will be an out of court settlement (no way the RFL would let it go all the way in that case!), with a nicely worded comms about need to move on, in the best interest of all parties, blah blah and an out of court settlement received and no further comment would be made by any party. No points back, but Green gets some cash and the option to buy back the lease at a 'fair' price, which he does, then having obtained an asset looks to recover his cash by selling the club! If this isn't the scenario and Green's end game (maybe not selling the club, but getting some cash!), I don't see any sense in what he's doing, in probably throwing good money after bad!

[Bulliac]

Re: Court. : Mon Jul 07, 2014 2:43 pm  

Of course, the whole business with BB2014 also includes the fact that, since they had not come to any agreement with Omar Khan, they were never actually 'the owners', not that this stopped the RFL from regarding them as such and allowing them to represent the club at meetings in Red Hall.

I suspect, case coming to a conclusion or not, that heads will roll.

Re: Court. : Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:47 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

Of course, the whole business with BB2014 also includes the fact that, since they had not come to any agreement with Omar Khan, they were never actually 'the owners', not that this stopped the RFL from regarding them as such and allowing them to represent the club at meetings in Red Hall.

...

There was never any question of BB2014 coming to an agreement with OK, i think you are confusing the deal for MM &RW to buy OK's shares in OKB.

BB2014 weren't the owners but were provisional owners subject to no better offers coming in, and did get a 1 month licence so were present at meetings legitimately.

Re: Court. : Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:12 pm  

rugbyreddog wrote:

Perhaps we will hear more about the lies the RFL were told by Hudds over the Kopout saga that came to light when Mason went to court.

Have you not got over that yet?

Ta-ra

Re: Court. : Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:29 pm  

FARTOWNFORLIFE wrote:

Have you not got over that yet?

Ta-ra

What? The fact your club illegally terminated the contract of one of your players or that you made an unpunished illegal approach for one of our players?

Just so we're clear on which point you're referring to, you know?

Re: Court. : Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:46 am  

FARTOWNFORLIFE wrote:

Have you not got over that yet?

Ta-ra

Can you not follow the thread of the argument. Somebody mentioned integrity in sport so I brought up the point about Huddersfield poaching a player, denying it to the RFL and then admitting it at court.

Re: Court. : Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:54 am  

rugbyreddog wrote:

Can you not follow the thread of the argument. Somebody mentioned integrity in sport so I brought up the point about Huddersfield poaching a player, denying it to the RFL and then admitting it at court.

There is no doubt that The Giants acted shamefully in terminating Keith Mason's contract, the court rightly found against them and Keith Mason deserved the compensation he was awarded. The Giants conduct in that affair was embarrssing to the great majority of Giants fans. The relevance of the evidence in that case over when the Giants agreed to sign Craig Kopczak as related to timing, that is evidence in the illegal manouveres to sack Keith Mason. Nowhere in that case was it even suggested that approach was illegal, so it is quite wrong to state that the Giants admitted an illegal approach in court (actually the statement in court came from Craig Kopczak). Agreement of a deal before a certain date is not evidence of illegal approach. Quite simply if there is permission to talk the approach is not illegal.

Huddersfield Giants did deny poaching the player to the RFL and I understand have documentary evidence from a certain Mr Guilfoyle permitting them to negotiate with the player. At that time a large number of your players had option deals agreed with various clubs, most chose to stay with OK Bulls Kopczak and Bryn Hargreaves were the exceptions. I am sure you will recall that about 18 months later Gareth Carvell left the Bulls on the same basis.

The Mason affair was shameful, the Kopczak affair is also shameful as I understand it, but the shame there was more to do with the conduct of a certain RFL representative, who when put on the spot at a Bulls fans event, rather than give the honest, though undoubtedly unpopular answer for his audience, chose to give a different answer. That answer has in my opinion led to lots of bad blood between Bulls and Giants fans.

The reason full details of the RFL inquiry into the Kopczak affair have not been published is I suspect to protect reputation, however it is not the reputation of the Huddersfield Giants being protected (why would the RFL protect one of the Lenaghan led rebel clubs?).

Re: Court. : Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:18 pm  

GiantDee wrote:

... Nowhere in that case was it even suggested that approach was illegal, so it is quite wrong to state that the Giants admitted an illegal approach in court (actually the statement in court came from Craig Kopczak).

Your memory is conveniently selective.

T&A report wrote:

Both Kopczak and Giants’ managing director Richard Thewlis have admitted under oath that they agreed a contract on August 8, despite Kopczak’s contract with the Bulls still having 16 months left to run.

Omar Khan wrote:

“We are also concerned that in October of last year both Kopczak and Thewlis denied this to RFL investigator John Dearden, and indeed Kopczak stated that he was not at that time employed by anyone. “We trust the RFL will now further investigate this matter, which has seen us deprived of a player who was under contract to us when illegally approached.”

Even the most blinkered Giant would get that if the approach had been legal, then Kopczak and the Giants would have made that simple point to the RFL investigator, and asked him to check with Guilfoyle. Simples.

Re: Court. : Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:10 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Your memory is conveniently selective.
Even the most blinkered Giant would get that if the approach had been legal, then Kopczak and the Giants would have made that simple point to the RFL investigator, and asked him to check with Guilfoyle. Simples.

Blinkered? My first reaction is that Pots and Kettles spring to mind, but I do understand your reaction. Let me assure you that though you may not accept what I posted I really am not an enemy of your club.

I note you quote Omar Khan - seriously? After all that he has done for your club you think that his statements are reliable or even plausible? Your other quote correctly identifies when the Giants spoke to Kopczak, factually that is not in any way inconsistant with what I said. If your version was correct then the Giants would have been fined, they were not, there must be a reason for that, what is that reason? I have posted what I was told and I believe that to be the correct explanation, it fits with the lack of punishment and seems to me much more plausible than the RFL just deciding to let the Giants off.

I am not interested in engaging with what I see as you arguing that up is in fact down. I can though very much empathise with the agony that Bulls supporters have been put through over the last number of years, your club seems to have been on an ever accelerating downward spiral. I have experienced similar myself with my first sporting love (The Dee in my user name is a reference to my football club). That club faced two Administrations a 25 point penalty, lost a number of very good players for nothing and endured dreadful on field performances as a result, it was heartbreaking, but things are now improving. In truth the first administration was a farce and really did not address anything, we limped on for seven years before the second, but we have rebuilt from there and now four years on are back to where we can be and looking as healthy as we have been for 40 years.

My point being recovery is not about arresting the decline, that allows existance not recovery. Recovery requires discipline, patience and realism. Recovery for Bradford Bulls will only come when the real issues are faced by the Bulls rather than blaming the Bogeyman, Huddersfield Giants, Kopczak, Carvell or even the Wakefield owner! It seems to me that there is an awful lot of misinformation around the Bulls, some is devious and spiteful, some is harmless and a lot appears to be spread by those who shamefully mismanaged your club, covering thier tracks. If you expend all your energy on battles arising from that misinformation you will have no energy left to expend on recovery.

Fortunately my impression is that Marc Green will make good long term decisions to turn your clubs decline around. That to me is really interesting as I do not believe he is taking legal action simply to get six points back. He is surely no mug and so there must be a reason for his actions. Statements supporting him from the HKR and Salford owners add intrigue, is this action really about future governance of the sport? I think it may be, but that is speculation on my part.

Good luck whatever.

Re: Court. : Thu Jul 10, 2014 12:28 am  

GiantDee wrote:

Blinkered? My first reaction is that Pots and Kettles spring to mind, but I do understand your reaction. Let me assure you that though you may not accept what I posted I really am not an enemy of your club.

Who said you were? You made a bad point but simply won't consider the (rather obvious) objection to it.

In case you forgot:
If the approach was not illegal - why lie to the RFL investigator about it? Obviously, they would have said "Yes, we did approach, with permission". To suggest otherwise is simply illogical. Though I am up for a laugh so if you want to ahve a go at some other reasonable explanation then let's hear it!

GiantDee wrote:

I note you quote Omar Khan - seriously? After all that he has done for your club you think that his statements are reliable or even plausible?

Yes, and have not been contradicted. Odd, that. Khan saved the club. Without him, there would be no Bulls. You're the one who seems to have bought the misinformation. If you want to specify any particular statement of his that you claim is either unreliable or not even plausible then there may be some point in addressing it, but if you can't ot won't then your generalisation is just pointless waffle.

GiantDee wrote:

If your version was correct then the Giants would have been fined,

You have an advantage over me in that you have clearly seen an announcement from the RFL as to what the outcome was. You must be the only one. nobody else has been told. Could you just post a link, so we can all keep the decision as a memento?

GiantDee wrote:

Good luck whatever.

thanks