Thanks for that, and for not jumping down my throat. Fully understand now the point you were seeking to make, and without a doubt yes, the legal form etc is something many very small businesses should not really be expected to have to deal with. In this case, no there was nothing whatsoever untoward as I think you recognise, but yes I have seen examples where unscrupulous businessmen have seemingly sought to confuse their trading partners with entity names. So I think it is perfectly fair for you to emphasise the point.

And it is not just the very small businesses that get confused. At one of my last companies, wearing my credit management hat (one of several dozen...) early doors I indentified several customers where we had insured credit limits, in two cases over £1m, where (sometime previously) in each case entity A had sold the business to new entity B, with a similar-sounding name. But it transpired we still had insured credit limits on Entities A, which were now dormant, whereas Entities B owed us a shedload...and we had no insurance on them at all! Just as well I fixed it, since one of the Entity Bs went belly-up a year after I left. OK, its not quite the same point you were making, but its from the same stable - beware dealing with company B, when you THINK you are dealing with company A!

we have 17 of our current squad out of contract at the end of NOvember come what may. Already Jeffries, Sibbit and Burgess have confirmed that they wont be staying! the fans are under no illusion that next years squad will be smaller and/or less good than this one (which finished 2 points above your team after a deduction unlike any seen in SL before!)

the point here isnt to do with servicing the player salaries (which was done thanks to advances in monies from the RFL, which the newco will have to forgo!) its about transfering players contracts. Kopzcak's timing showed a lack of respect for his team mates and the club as a whole! As far as i understand, only the out of contract players were told to find new clubs as Guilfoyle knew that the only real assets the club had was its younger players on multi year contracts, such as Kopzcak!

Got to say I feel very disappointed in Koppy, but if that's kind of guy he really is then we're better without him. Feel for the other players though, where it seems the news hasn't gone down too well. In hard times, I guess you need to know who your friends are. Hope Huddersfield have an 'interesting' season next time round.

Been away and shocked to read this! Can't blame anyone for leaving after all this, but atm it feels like he's let his teammates down and the fans too.

He's not irreplaceable, but it's always difficult to see home grown talent leave.

You can't really blame him for wanting to move and secure his own future, however the timing and how it's been handled is a little dissapointing and I can see how people feel let down, especially by a local lad

The RFL opened the can of worms with contracted players when Blake Solly said all players could seek to start negotiations if the SLE bid was accepted. it would be very hard to prove if/when a contracted player was actually approached by another club.......Not another long drawn out battle in which the only winners are the lawyers raking it in whilst The RFL and clubs fight amongst themselves again.....

Fortunately at no point was the SLE bid accepted, so no contracted players were given permission to negotiate.

Interestingly, Koppy will be the only Bulls player to not get paid for Sept/Oct - unless his new club makes him the assistant groundsman for that time - as the registration period for the 2012 season has now passed.

I would assume that once players accept this months wage (on the 14th) they could not then decline to be transferred?

From the Rangers perspective - Mr Green is fighting some players transfers as he believes it was too late after the TUPE. It's all about the registrations now for them. Some clubs like Everton (naismith) have paid up an acceptable transfer fee just to stay out of it.

I wonder how the RFL will rule on Koppy's registration? Or will a deal be done behind closed doors?

Is he claiming unfair dismissal? My understanding of the TUPE regs is that you can walk away from your employment contract and not take up the new employment should you not wish to work for the new employer. Don't think anyone can be compelled to work for the new company. Surely this is exactly the same situation as rangers?

My understanding is that if you don't wish to work for your new employer you have the right to end the contract of employment, this, afaik, is one sided, and doesn't apply to a new employer, who is obliged to accept all the contracted employees.

It's disappointing though, unless he had been told there is to be a change to his contract it seems a bit like taking advantage of the situation and I'm not surprised team mates are a bit miffed.

According to someone on the T and A site Blake Solly said this in the RLE today,
"It appears that Craig may have been approached by another club while under contract to Bradford and we are going to have to investigate. We would naturally try to uphold Craigs existing registration and contract, and if we find that an illegal approach was made, the RFL directors have the power to refuse to register any new contract."

We are fortunate that in the background we have people who are or have been associated with the club who are experienced in long protracted expensive legal battles, have represented young academy products seeking employment elsewhere and who, by all accounts, have newly found time on their hands.

Must agree with Duckman - How could anything possibly go wrong.

Not an expert on the legalities but it does seem to me to be unreasonable to expect players to commit to being TUPE'd until the decision on whether we stay in SL is taken.

I predict 1 problem will be that Bulls will have no argument re Kopout's contract terminating, but his registration should be rightfully transferred to the new company. If another club would like this registration, they should pay. The registration is an asset that belongs to OK Bulls.

I was interested to see what his team mates thought about his decision, and Whitehead's interview does show that they are as disappointed as the fans. Not that he's actually left, but he didn't have the decency to tell anyone face to face.

All those saying that he's only looking after his family, I don't really buy into that. He had a secure contract for the next 2 years. That' s a lot more security than the players like Hargreaves and Sammut have. With all the OOC players leaving, i suspect the new owners will be keen to tie down the future stars to long term contracts, on better salaries.

not sure our SL status is really relevant as if we do lose our SL place all contracts are void anyway. Only thing they lose by agreeing to be tupe'd is ability to sign for another club before our SL status is clarified.

If Blake Solly said that he is either an idiot or simply giving empty quotes to the paper. Refusing to register a Contract would be a restraint of trade - there is well known legal precedent, commonly known as The Bosman ruling.

I suspect it is an empty quote, he doesn't seem to be doing much about Cas' complaints over Hull's statements re Chase.