It's pleasing to see neutral RL fans/journalists also recognise the injustice of the situation we're currently facing. Will the RFL grow a spine and step in and put pressure on the SL clubs who apparently have the final say?

Also, where are we in regards to re-opening the Koppy tapping up case, or has that one already been swept under the carpet?

How much do Huddersfield owe the Bulls for CK? Not one person has said how much the BULLS are expecting (genuine question). As I have said previously I and many others aren't happy about the way this was done. Nor do I agree about your money being shared around but when CK left most of the posters on here called and still call him Kopout and were happy to see a player who didn't want to play for your club leave (albeit we now know his head may have been turned).

I don't think there is a regular scale to quantify that.
The Bulls might argue that if they had put him on the market they would have expected £x for his contract.
Huddersfield might argue that they would have only paid £xx for him.
The RFL might judge that £xxx is a reasonable price.
There again, the RFL might totally bottle out as per normal.

Roger let it go lad don't listen to super league backchat or Sky as they really are, You remember Sky ? They used to give you money.

love
K. Sinfield

The RFL are in an awkward position given that they were obviously lied to by Hudders officials. Are they going to just let that slide? If they do they'll be setting an awful precedent.

Maybe big Ralph will make sure his club,oops I mean Hudds,get away scot free

The other, and I should say, far more important thing which was decided later, was to re-structure the league under a bottom goes out principle, whilst they they knew full well we were going to be hamstrung by the underfunding they'd organised, and to which we'd agreed before we knew what the rules were going to be.

Restraint of trade, constructive dismissal?? It certainly can't be right, can it?

It certainly wasn't part of what the new owners signed up to. I'd be interested to know how they voted when the league proposals were discussed. Anyone go to the forum recently and ask that?

It would be nice to have some clarity, rather than the usual hysterical screams of incompetence & moral corruption against the RFL. What exactly are the facts behind the Bulls forfeiting half their Sky money? I have read a few times that it either agreed by or suggested by the new OK regime as a sweetener to the other clubs to allow them to remain in SL. The issue that they didn't agree to spend it on youth development is largely irrelevant as far as I am concerned as long as it stayed in the game. How many years of sacrifice was agreed? Was part of the deal that Bradford kept their squad together rather than predatory clubs picking off their players on the cheap (as a number of other clubs including Bradford have been guilty of in the past when teams have been relegated or in financial mire)?

It would have been ok to hand over the 2 years of Sky money if, as was the understanding were going to go through the licensing process for the next 3 years at the end of term. However, if you change the goal posts, you cant expect to apply the same financial fine for different rules for relegation promotion.

The RFL are certainly procrastinating with the Giants issue, it would not surprise me if they wait till the end of the regular season for a points deduction or fine.

As I understood it, some of the owners of clubs which run at a loss and have to be supported by said owner, thought that Bradford going into administration and effectively walking away from debts without financial penalty was giving Bradford an unfair advantage.

As they saw it, it would save them money if they funded their clubs less, built up debts, then bought the club cheaply from administration. Instead of the owner losing money, it would be the taxpayer (usually the biggest creditor) losing money.

This was the RFL & club chairmen compromise deal to make the 2nd scenario unpalatable to club chairmen.

As a franchise system is a closed membership (invitation only) they could withhold 1 full year Sky money ( but spread over 2 years).

Changing it to P/R does give the opportunity to challenge I would think.

I thought there were laws against the same directors going into admin and then starting the same operation all over again under a different name to escape the debts? Cannon and Ball spring to mind, weren’t they disqualified from being directors for that very reason? If that sort of practice isn’t illegal then I can understand other clubs wanting to guard against it. However in our case that didn’t even happen as the new company doesn’t have any connection with the last in terms of directors or shareholders?

I’m confused.

Rarely post these days but as a Bulls supporting actor once said "my dander is well and truly up!" Some or all of this may have be mentioned but there ya go. Just hoping it will make me feel a bit better but I bet it won't.

At the last fans forum GS stated that the club were going to seek legal advice re the sharing of the Sky money amongst the other clubs. I got the impression that he was saying that in the light of the reintro of promotion/relegation because, as has been stated many times recently, the goalposts have definitely been moved and it is not a level playing field. Whilst (thankfully) I'm not a lawyer, the original decision to deprive the club of said money and redistribute it was nothing short of extortion - basically, "pay up or you don't come in". From everything I have read and heard there was nothing official to it and it has set a terrible precedent, where certain Super League chairmen/club owners are calling the shots and the RFL are exposed as weak and frightened. The greatest sport in the world led by complete clowns! The other clubs have essentially started down the road of creating a cartel and the whole thing flies in the face of the spirit of competion law. In one way, I really do hope the club goes down the road of legal exploration, although that would obviously be expensive, depending on the level of resistance encountered. However, after the Hudds/Mason debacle I think most clubs might be wary of an impending courtroom wrestle when all they need to do is cough up a mere £50kish each to make a huge potential nightmare for themselves and the sport go away. You would think that by now even the most autocratic and obstinate of club chairmen must recognise that it was an act of folly to allow themselves to be led into a decision that was opportunistic and greedy and driven, by individuals who clearly have little or no regard to the consequences of their autocratic actions. Just how and why did the RFL sit back and allow this to happen??? Are they and the other clubs not guilty of bringing the game into disrepute?

The Kopczack cock-up is a different pit of vipers, and one which affects the reputation of the game I love in a big way. As a previous poster stated, if the RFL let this one slide they will be setting a huge and immensely damaging precedent. Furthermore, does not the whole sequence of events (from CK's 'loaded' walkout to Mason's contrived dimissal and subsequent court hearing) contain collectively, the ingredients of fraud and conspiracy? Something definitely there for the lawyers to chew over I think.

That's all except Leeds then?



I can see their point if that is the case.



I'm not sure what point you trying to make here. Are you saying all owners except Leeds thought they would follow the Bradford model?



Again I am not clear, the club chairmen made it unpalatable to themselves?