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.

Sounds like RFL are more interested in timing off the approach. I.e whilst kopczak still had a valid contract in place. If hudds had waited til after kopczak had resigned before approaching him then everything would be fine. As it is, although they will claim they didnt approach him until after he resigned, they could be on dodgy ground due to their fans boasting for months that they had signed him.

I can just see someone from Hudds saying yes we approached him before he declined to be Tupe'd...... no doubt they will say his agent approached us after he had declared his intent to B Guilfoyle that he did not wish to be contracted to the new company....... try proving otherwise...could be a costly court case

All fans boast they have signed someone or other, Apparently Sam Tomkins is playing for Wire next season

and if said team was found giants, sorry guilty, would a points deduction be imposed next season? if it was good enough for wakefield when they tried tapping up robinson at wigan, it should be the same for any other, a loss of 4 points starting next season

what complaints? millwards rant! both cas and hull agreed a deal for chase, just a pity millward and the cas board dont seem to communicate with each other!

Blake Solly is far from being an idiot, and you don't understand the position.

In Bosman, the player's contract had expired, that is not the case here. Players as well as clubs agree to abide by the RFL's regulations and cannot tear up contracts on a whim. The RFL is perfectly entitled to apply its Operational Rules in deciding whether or not to register a player with another club.

What you also need to get your head around is that contractual restraint of trade is neither illegal nor unusual. The question would not be whether something [iwas[/i a restraint of trade, but rather if it was, whether it was a [ilawful[/i restraint of trade.

Or are you suggesting that if, the day after Sam Tomkins signed a 3 year deal, another team made an illegal approach, tapped him up and signed him, the RFL would be obliged by law to let it go through, and forced to ignore the wholesale breaches of its own rules?

Have you paid your debts yet to the people who were contracted to Bradford Bulls for different services?

Deduction of points would not help Bradford in League 1 next year would it?

#getyourhouseinorderfirst

It's not a court Case though. Only ruled that have been broken are rfl's internal ones so doesn't to be proof in legal sense. Think if RFL are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that an illegal approach has happened then they'll apply a sanction to hudds. Won't affect kopczak going to hudds but there will be a cost associated either as a transfer fee or a fine/Pts deduction