FORUMS > Bradford Bulls > £20k for Kopczak |
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1894 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2008 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2017 | Nov 2017 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
|
Quote: martinwildbull "a summary from 5RB.com(clause 5 - play for leeds again) [/iwas subject to the restraint of trade doctrine; L was wrong to dispute this on the footing that cl 5 merely allowed L to require H to resume his employment if he left C early; but in its overall context cl 5 was reasonable in the public interest, and the interests of both L and H.
with any case the judge has to go through all the arguments and come to a judgement on their merits. Leeds put forward the employment resumption argument that it was not a restraint of trade, the judge said it was. He then looked at the entire context of the agreement itself and said that in these circumstances it was not a restraint, in fact Harris had benefited from it. so overall, the net effect, call it what you want, not a restraint of trade. Otherwise we would have won the case, Leeds would have paid our expenses, we wouldnt have sold Sam Hood would have a knighthood.
So I apologise for calling you a pedant, sorry sophist, I should have said that you cannot see the wood for the trees.'"
Whilst the above purports to be a selective summary : the full High Court decision 20/7/2005 can be found here-
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1591.html
Hood unwisely took this to appeal and ended in May 2008 paying an undisclosed amount to Leeds + all cost + a public apology.
|
|
Quote: martinwildbull "a summary from 5RB.com(clause 5 - play for leeds again) [/iwas subject to the restraint of trade doctrine; L was wrong to dispute this on the footing that cl 5 merely allowed L to require H to resume his employment if he left C early; but in its overall context cl 5 was reasonable in the public interest, and the interests of both L and H.
with any case the judge has to go through all the arguments and come to a judgement on their merits. Leeds put forward the employment resumption argument that it was not a restraint of trade, the judge said it was. He then looked at the entire context of the agreement itself and said that in these circumstances it was not a restraint, in fact Harris had benefited from it. so overall, the net effect, call it what you want, not a restraint of trade. Otherwise we would have won the case, Leeds would have paid our expenses, we wouldnt have sold Sam Hood would have a knighthood.
So I apologise for calling you a pedant, sorry sophist, I should have said that you cannot see the wood for the trees.'"
Whilst the above purports to be a selective summary : the full High Court decision 20/7/2005 can be found here-
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1591.html
Hood unwisely took this to appeal and ended in May 2008 paying an undisclosed amount to Leeds + all cost + a public apology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Moderator | 10969 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2023 | Jun 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
1271.jpg Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
Build Bridges NOT Walls:1271.jpg |
Moderator
|
| Quote: Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza "What if (hypothetical) the bulls remained in administration with the fans funding it to keep it going. Playing this season with a skeleton squad of players that were still under contract?'"
Not sure that the 1500 of us left still turning up[I include myself in that figure but in all honesty I couldn't be [iabsolutely[/i sure, even about me] could still be able to afford the administrators far from inconsiderable wages. To be honest, imo getting Gilfool off the payroll was the best bit of business done over the last closed season.
Think you may have fallen the wrong way off that line which divides genius from madness with that one Macbull.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 7096 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2007 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | Sep 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
36131_1571835935.jpg nosorożce biorą to w dupę:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_36131.jpg |
|
| Quote: Bulliac "Not sure that the 1500 of us left still turning up[I include myself in that figure but in all honesty I couldn't be [iabsolutely[/i sure, even about me] could still be able to afford the administrators far from inconsiderable wages. To be honest, imo getting Gilfool off the payroll was the best bit of business done over the last closed season.
Think you may have fallen the wrong way off that line which divides genius from madness with that one Macbull.
Yeah I know it wouldn't have happened just what would have happened with regards the Kopout?
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Moderator | 10969 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2023 | Jun 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
1271.jpg Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
Build Bridges NOT Walls:1271.jpg |
Moderator
|
| Quote: Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza "Yeah I know it wouldn't have happened just what would have happened with regards the Kopout?'"
His only way out was in refusing to be tupe'd over to the new company, which he quite legitimately didn't have to accept if he didn't want to, so under your scenario, as he would still have been under the old regime [in admin] he wouldn't have been tupe'd, so couldn't have legally left.
Unless anyone knows different..
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 12310 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2006 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2023 | Feb 2023 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
28396_1358365565.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_28396.jpg |
|
| Just because there's a few people on here that seem to know about contracts and the newco etc.
Does anyone know that if (in the highly unlikely event) Sam Burgess decided he wanted to return to the UK, would we still have the option to sign him that I remember was talked about at the time?
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1323 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2007 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jul 2024 | Mar 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| Quote: Ewwenorfolk "Just because there's a few people on here that seem to know about contracts and the newco etc.
Does anyone know that if (in the highly unlikely event) Sam Burgess decided he wanted to return to the UK, would we still have the option to sign him that I remember was talked about at the time?'"
I'm not sure whether that would have died with the old company, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that, post-Harris, no club would be willing to put it to the test.
|
|
|
|
|
|