I also humbly apologize for my earlier brain fart didnt realise what i posted

Kopczack is a decent prop who if he'dve been five years older would not have got near our first team. He signed every contract he has had, and not being offered revised terms when the current one still has a year to run is not unusual. Had he played and we'd won in the final round, andf subsequently we'd got to the playoffs, I would accept his claim for loyalty, but being in the first team for four seasons doesnto warrant a testemonial, especially when the club, his home town club, needs all the revenue it can get!

A testimonial stands if a player has been at the club 10 years you will find
Every player is entitled to that.

Ps by law he wasn't allowed to play the last game, if he had he would have been accepting his contract being switched over to OK Bulls, if you resigned from your job on the Friday you wouldn't be turning into work Monday would you! No notice is required when you reject a tupe transfer.
Why are people still talking about him? It's old news, we have more pressing matters which lie ahead for the club.

The issue was that he did play, though, knowingly, for the new owners. He hadn't received a letter, true, but as the club had only been sold on the Friday evening that is no surprise. It would be, shall we say, surprising if he didn't know the club had changed hands.


Well, people talk about what they want! Why are YOU talking about him, then?

2012 was his 10th year wasn't it?

IIRC he resigned part way through the season which would make it about 9.75 years.

Don't think 9.75 entitles you to a testimonial.

Didn't it stem from koppy playing for us after the deadline to to TUPE'd and he is now disputing the fact the was ever told, if he wants to go let him then we can move on with signing up players for next season.

I would have assumed every attempt would have been made to inform the players about the ins and out of a possible take over, no one else has had a problem with it.

There are certainly things to be done under TUPE but these are impossible to reconcile with a situation where one minute, there IS no buyer, because the RFL have not made a decision, and then the administrator (who is effectively the prospective seller) says the club will fold at midnight unless a deal is done. A deal is then done only hours before the deadline, and we have a game next day.

It would have been impossible for the new owner to have done anything at all prior to being accepted by the RFL and so what can you do? The rules and regulations seem to only cater for a situation where there is leisurely time for the proposed new owner and old owner to go through consultations, give notices etc., and not for a situation where literally everything is (and has to be) put together out of hours on a weekend at the drop of a hat.

As you say, nobody else seemed to have a problem with it.

Agreed but its not the Data Protection act that it falls under, which was my point.

FC said at the fans' forum that, as far as both he and the club were concerned, Kopczak remained a Bulls player and that Huddersfield had been 'very naughty'. Make of that what you will I suppose.

After a sincere apology I would take him back in an instant. He is a top quality, young, international standard prop. There aren't too many of those kicking around right now.

He was, up until recently, the club's player of the year too. I would prefer to keep him for his playing ability but nobody is bigger than the club.

If the players can accept him back then fair enough. Otherwise I'd prefer us to get rid.

No your wrong, in fact Kopczak would have been in his 10th yr at bulls next year. It WOULD have been his testimonial. Speaks volumes that he left without cashing in his testimonial

His wrong what?

No I am not. I did not make a claim, which could be "wrong". I don't know when he joined the Bulls. I thought I had read somehwere that 2012 was his 10th year hence the question.

The only site I can find that makes any claim is loverugbyleague which states that "Craig Kopczak joined Bradford Bulls in 2004" - when he would have been 18.


Thus presumably counting time as a junior?


Does it? What is it saying, then, as I can't hear a thing. Anyway, I have checked now, and there is nothing in the RFL Operational Rules that specifies a 10 year period.

Shaun Briscoe was recently awarded a three-month testimonial "to mark a decade in professional rugby league".

Danny McGuire has had a testimonial year approved by the RFL next year and he debuted in 2001 in SL so that is a minimum of 11 years; in fact he was a junior at the Rhinos from age 13 so has been there 16 years. He's SL's record try scorer and has won 5 Grand Finals. He deserves a testimonial year. I don't imagine for a minute that Kopczak would have qualified for a testimonial year and I doubt very much that he would have even thought about it.

It speaks volumes that you've set up a straw man about Kopczak foregoing a very lucrative testimonial year to leave the Bulls when this turns out to be just more bollox.

HTH.

Koppy signed for Bradford in June 2003.