Re: Court. : Thu Jul 10, 2014 6:37 am  

I have a vague recollection that the squad was ringfenced by a gentlemens agreement by RFL/SL members as we went into admin partway through the fixtures. the second time no such issue as only a couple of fixtures (sorry Wakefield clearly unfair on you). After all, the RFL could not override the TUPE legislation. If so then how could there be a fine as presumably the gentlemans agreement was actually a restraint of trade. Constructive comments/elucidation please FA?

Re: Court. : Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:20 am  

I don't see that it's anything to do with TUPE. The rules on illegal approaches are pretty clear, and applicable to all clubs at all times. While a club is in administration it is still a club, still the same company/ownership anyway - just being temporarily run by an administrator. As for the "gentlemens' agreement" not to poach Bradford players, I had to chuckle at the time, since of course poaqching players was already against the rules, and so in reality the clubs were frankly admitting that poaching takes place despite the rules (which we of course all know) and this agreement was therefore no more than a temporary agreement to for a short while comply with the actual rules before (presumably) reverting to normal.

Either way, if they were subject to a gentlemens' agreement then Shudds broke it, and denied having made any approach, to the RFL's investigator following OK's complaint, when in fact they had not only approached but agreed to sign Kopczak.

A year ago, tigertot posted this about it:

tigertot wrote:

The RFL have at least two issues to consider.
1. If the Huddersfield representatives under questioning by a RFL official had told the truth about the recruitment of
Kopczak - would they have agreed with the BUll's case that a transfer fee was due and how much would they
have awarded

2. If the Huddersfield representatives did lie to the RFL official, as they appear to have admitted in the high court,
The RFL will take a view on the seriousness of those representatives telling lies to the RFL. both personally and
on behalf of the club

The credibility of the RFL as a governing body is at stake.

Whatever the outcome of the RFL's "investigation" into the farrago may have been, it has been 9as so often the case nowadays with the RFL) kept a dark secret and so if they did or din't do anyting, or made any findings, or whatever, we haven't been told. That seems appalling to me as the allegations about Shudds' conduct both as regards the bulls, and fellow clubs, but in particular as regards an official investigator of the RFL, seemed something to be taken extremely seriously to me.

However, as time has passed, so many allegations of strange conduct have surfaced against the RFL that I believe people have allegation fatigue, and the RFL maybe have taken a tip from HM Gov that however big the shitstorm, it will only be headlines for a day or two after which nobody will care, and so the net result is an ever-growing list of serious questions that ought to be answered - but never are.

And of course, again in Camoron-stylee, if you ever ask one, you are immediately trolled with fatuous comments about "moving on", as if wanting serious answers to serious questions was in some mysterious way an impediment to "moving on", whatever that means.

Re: Court. : Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:41 am  

Another issue that has bothered me for some time is the player registration by the RFL. Under the quick turnaround of the likes of Kop and latterly Carvell, what tests do the RFL demand before registering a player to play for another club, when theoretically still contracted, with Kopout it was TUPE that allowed it. But with Carvell as we subsequently found out we as a club were still in administration, and therefore he was contracted to play his Rugby for the Bulls. Not Hull who managed to get him registered in one week?
I always thought the RFL held a copy of every players contracts, and this was scrutinised before registering him for another club? Curious as to how they always manage to do things at breakneck pace, when it suits them (RFL I'm talking about).

Re: Court. : Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:54 am  

Rarebreed wrote:

... with Kopout it was TUPE that allowed it. ...

Not so.

Richard Thewlis wrote:

(in evidence at the Mason hearing)
“It was my belief the player was going to be a free agent.

“It seemed pragmatic for all concerned to draw a line under the matter and allow everybody to move on.

“The RFL suggested the compromise as they wouldn't allow us his registration without it.”

Mr Kopczak was formally signed the day after the RFL hearing completed and his pay backdated to September 1.

Re: Court. : Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:10 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Not so.

From that are we to deduce that the RFL knew the circumstances way in advance of the actual hearing, but didn't allow the registration until the hearing that also involved the Mason problem.
CK left the Bulls on 31st August and this was without being a registered Player for anyone? However "not so" this might appear. Is that right??
Still don't know about Carvell, and the contract situation ie do the RFL have copies of all contracts, which must be the case otherwise they would be letting a lot go on the say so of clubs and agents...oh yes that's right they do? (dependant on clubs, I suppose. They must know the ones they can trust implicitly.)

Am I being deliberately obtuse, or what?

Re: Court. : Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:58 pm  

Rarebreed wrote:

From that are we to deduce that the RFL knew the circumstances way in advance of the actual hearing, but didn't allow the registration until the hearing that also involved the Mason problem.

No, the hearing didn't involve the mason issue. It was to sort out the Bulls' complaint that Kopczak had been tapped up illegally. The Giants denied it, and as we had no proof, the RFL found they had "no case to answer". I had always assumed that the Giants were told to make the token payment as a slap on the wrist for breaching the "gentlemens' agreement". As thewlis said, the RFL wouldn't allow the registration unless Giants paid. Privately I expect they would have been chuckling and happy to escape with a token payment and nobody would have been any the wiser had the truth not come out much later in the unconnected Mason litigation.

Rarebreed wrote:

CK left the Bulls on 31st August and this was without being a registered Player for anyone? However "not so" this might appear. Is that right??

Kopczak remained registered with the Bulls until his registration was transferred to the Giants. Just because a player walks out does not affect the fact that the club holds his registration.

Re: Court. : Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:39 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

No, the hearing didn't involve the mason issue. It was to sort out the Bulls' complaint that Kopczak had been tapped up illegally. The Giants denied it, and as we had no proof, the RFL found they had "no case to answer". I had always assumed that the Giants were told to make the token payment as a slap on the wrist for breaching the "gentlemens' agreement". As thewlis said, the RFL wouldn't allow the registration unless Giants paid. Privately I expect they would have been chuckling and happy to escape with a token payment and nobody would have been any the wiser had the truth not come out much later in the unconnected Mason litigation.

Kopczak remained registered with the Bulls until his registration was transferred to the Giants. Just because a player walks out does not affect the fact that the club holds his registration.

Much obliged, Although if a player walks out he is in breach of contract, and from what you write FA the RFL acted according to those rules, after we had lodged a complaint.
So I wonder why they registered Harris when Leeds had said he was in breach of contract, although that was a while afterwards wasn't it, a bit like the CK affair, ie everything done behind closed doors, leaving supporters bemused by the mysterious workings of Red Hall. Because as we know they wouldn't countenance Registering a player in breach of contract, so I suppose Carvell was the exception to that rule?

Re: Court. : Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:32 pm  

Re Harris, the Bulls produced a valid and binding player contract for registration. The Rhinos didn't have one. They claimed that they had a binding contract with Harris to come back to them and maybe they did but that is not a matter for the RFL, the only contract they are interested in is a players contract. If the contract is valid and checks out then they have no grounds to refuse to register it. They are not the proper forum to rule on other contractual disputes.

More's the pity as if the registration had been refused we wouldn't be in the cesspool we are in today.

Re: Court. : Thu Jul 17, 2014 6:00 pm  

Bump.

So whats the latest?

[Bullseye]

Re: Court. : Thu Jul 17, 2014 6:05 pm  

Green hasn't made his mind up yet.