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?).

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.

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

In case you forgot
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.


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?


thanks

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?

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 [irun[/i 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

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 storm, 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.

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).

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?

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 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.

Bump.

So whats the latest?

Green hasn't made his mind up yet.