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

Send Luke O'Donnell off!! That should do the trick

I have sympathy because I dont expect him to be an expert on TUPE and employment law any more than I and many of us are. He's bound to be heavily reliant on the advice that he's receiving from his agent. Given the background this season, wages being paid late (and his employer at the time not thinking that was a big deal), he probably dosent know the new owner from Adam, the continuing uncertainty over the Bulls status etc I can imagine that trust is at a premium just now. If his agent said "you need to do this" then it doesnt surprise me that he did.

I've been involved in a situation where my employer has been taken over and it created a huge amount of uncertainty. Mutual trust disappears. People tend to take decisions over thei future employment seemingly as much to end the uncertainty as anything.

thanks for your concern, but im a hull fc fan

as for points deduction, hudds would/should get them form making an illegal approach to a bulls player after all the clubs agreed not to approach player contracted beyond 2012! looks like somebody went against that agreement as giants fans were claiming they had signed kopzack before the OK takeover

I understand that you are a solicitor so maybe you can clarify something from a legal standpoint ?

How can a "club" hold a player's registration when the "club" does not exist as a legal entity or recognised employer and is, as has been argued on here, merely a brand name ? Surely the registration is (was) held by the company as the "club" could not have employees ?

Thats what I don't get, how can a club cease so doesn't have to honour all it's debts but the new club claims to still hold player contracts?