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..

Defo: its make your mind up time for the Players contracted for 2013 and later.
To TUPE or not to TUPE before the deadline?

The Pro-TUPE arguments could be:
1. I'm not sure where OK Bulls are going to be next season and whether they can pay me my contracted wage, I've been made an offer elsewhere that is certain income and I can use TUPE to cancel my existing contract and move on.
2. I've been made a cracking offer by another club: I'll use TUPE to rid myself of my contract with the Bulls

The Anti-TUPE arguments might be:
1. My agent has shopped around and tells me that I can't get nowhere like the deal I'm currently on at the Bulls
2. My agent has shopped around and there is a better deal, but nowhere good enough to make me consider moving.
3. Despite my agent offering cracking deals to go elsewhere I want to stay at the Bulls for personal reasons. Should the
OK Bulls be demoted to the Championship then I might reconsider.

Batemans last tweet looks a little suspect.

Talks about ignoring the haters and looking at a fresh start......

There is no 14 day or any other period stated in TUPE.

All this tupe talk is very exciting.

I'm 'cool' with it, as they say in legal speak...