No.

You did.

As far as I know what I said regarding player registration is the case - someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (which I freely admit I could be).

As I said, if what I believe to be the case is the case (i.e that it is not a legal thing and is for the RFL to make up the rules for themselves) then the RFL can frankly set anyone they like to be able to register a player. Considering that the rules also allow for clubs not part of the RFL/SL to be able to play in SL (and thus presumably be able to register players) with their permission then I don't see why they wouldn't say clubs who aren't members can also register play contracts.

Also considering that they arrange an "agreement" from the other clubs not to poach our players (all after we stopped being members of the RFL) then I would guess they are of the opinion we do still hold the registration - again though this is just a guess on what has been said publicly and I don' have access to the full rules behind registering players.

Presuming that they do say we can maintain the player registration we previously had, then we will still hold Kopczaks registration, which means they could - in theory - prevent him playing for whatever new club he has signed for (presuming he does plan on signing for a new club and isn't taking a career change - which is a possibility)

Ok Bulls just ratified as a RFL member. and was phrased as suspension lifted rather than admitted as a new member although that could just be way radio worded report.

No that could well be right, membership can be deemed to be continuous between two owners, according to the operational rukes, so suspension is more accurate.

that was what i was getting at. If membership was only suspended whilst admin/change of ownership was going through, and not revoked, then questions about player registrations would be irrelevent. RFL press release could be read is that we were only suspended too.

You've got it back to front. What holds the player registrations is the legal entity that owns and runs the business. To put it another way, if it holds the registrations, then it exists. You just need to know what you're talking about in the relevant context.

The reason I referred to "club" was because in this context it seems sensible to use the same terminology as the RFL do when talking about their rules.

... and ...

I hope this goes some way to lessen your confusion.


All you need to get your head around is that a limited company is a legal person, just like a real live person. Fred Bloggs could run a dozen different businesses, all trading under different names. let's say one of them is called "Club Derwent". An employee could well be employed by "Club Derwent" if that's how he ran it, the legal entity would be "Fred Bloggs trading as Club Derwent", and that would be the reality, though the name everyone would know was simply "Club Derwent". Nobody would ever use the long version.

Fred could get fed up of running Club Derwent, and sell the business to Joe Brown. See what he did there? Club Derwent is what the employees and customers know and love, and carries on uninterrupted. It had, and has, employees. Now the contracts have all been TUPE'd to Joe Brown. The business, including the burden of employees contracts, has been acquired by a new owner.

If Club Derwent had been a member of some other body, (like the RFL) that body might want to have a look at who the new owners of Club Derwent are, before confirming whether they are cool with the membership having been transferred to a new member, and if they are, then Club Derwent's membership of that body does indeed remain uninterrupted.

Quite clearly I pose a question " Is the current debate about scenario a, or scenario b". I do not anywhere state that the Bulls directors were guilty of any malpractice.

However, if it makes you feel better, I reckon that the Bulls board DID know that their business was unsustainable and that they continued operating in a situation that they KNEW would result in the non-fulfillment of payments the HMRC, the RFL, staff players and suppliers.

Or do you suggest the everything was lovely, then they woke up one morning and the just happened?

If they didn't KNOW they were in an unsustainable business position...why had they already sought the help of the RFL??

FA, I'm aware of all of that but this thread is from an employment perspective. Under what employment law could a non-employing entity interfere with the employment of an individual ? Kopczak was employed by Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd, not Bradford Bulls RL club. So how can the RL club have any right under law to prevent him moving employers, or to restrict his employment opportunities ?

Regarding membership of the RFL, as I understand it, from a legal perspective it is the company which is a member of the RFL not "the club". Each company is given a £1 ordinary share in the RFL upon membership being granted, to enable a dividend of RFL profits to be paid at the end of the year. In the M&AA of the RFL the companies are listed as the members, e.g. Barrow Rugby Football Club Limited, Batley Football Club Limited etc. This is why OK Bulls Limited had to be ratified as members of the RFL, not Bradford Bulls RL club.

They arent preventing him from changing employers though. just determining whether he can compete in a competition which they control. Similar to quota rules. Neither would standup in a court of law as their both restraint of trade in a legal sense. But its a set of rules that member clubs and by extension players agree to abide by in order to take part in the competition.

In fact I think he probably was employed by Bradford Bulls RL Club on paper, but the club is the person/s who own it, you're making a needless distinction. It amounts to the same thing in this context.


Again, BB is in reality the legal entity OKB trading as BB. Whatever BB does it is really OKB acting under, if you like, an assumed name.

But the question is one of law, in law clearly his contract has passed from BBHL to OKB, as OKB bough the business, and all employees WERE 'TUPE'd" across. Including Kopczak, as it happens, because he didn't "resign" until some days after the change of ownership. I'm not an employment lawyer but the issue he has raised seems to be whether he can negate that after the event, if he does so within a relatively short timescale.


I'd agree with that, but the share is an asset of BBHL and will plainly have been sold to OKB. The issue for the RFL was whether to ratify or accept the membership of OKB. The reports refer to this as a "transfer" of membership and for all practical purposes it is.

Again the mistake that something is necessarily unlawful if it is a restraint of trade. Not so. The question is, if it is a restraint of trade, is it against the interests of the parties, or is it against public policy. REASONABLE restraints of trade are perfectly legal. Clause 5 in Iestyn Harris's contract dealing with his 'returnability' to Leeds was a clear restraint of trade, but was held in court not to be void, so I think we should know!

so would Kopczak count on Huddersfield's salary cap if he signs for them but we retain his registration?

If I'm understanding TUPE regulations correctly then employees are automatically Tupe'd across to the new company on the date of the takeover, BUT then have 14 days to decide whether they want to continue their contract or resign. It doesnt matter if they continue to perform their job in the 14 day period, it doesnt mean they've accepted the TUPE. So this friday seems to be the cut off date for any other players to resign. If they dont then they agree to their contracts being transferred.

Yeh, I'd worked that out but wasn't planning on saying anything until Saturday..