1. It maybe but unless there was a relegation clause in the bulls players contract then players would be on the same money as before...there was/is no clause in their contracts.

2. See first point

3. Jog on

ALL SL contracts have a standard clause in them, that if any club is relegated from SL then all player contracts at that club become null and void and the players become free agents. Its a standard paragraph that the RFL insists on being in all players contracts. Its to stop clubs being left with large liabilities to players if they lose their SL income.

Additionally, as stated, the RFL would not allow you to retain high earning players on your register anyway as you would be excessively breaching the salary cap if you were in CC or CC1. So one way or another you lose the players anyway.

No clauses in the contracts about relegation as confirmed by the RFL, another issue unfortunately they uncovered.

If Kopczak claims that his contract became void on 31 August, but played on 1 September, would that not infer an acceptance of the TUPE to the new company. He surely shouldn't have played if not contracted.

As far as we are aware, we are still in SL though, which makes the argument irrelevant. At the moment.
Fact is, Koppy has been paid, without fail, every month. The SL clubs agreed to not approach the players while they were still in SL. So we have a right to be
p!$$ed off with both Koppy and the mysterious SL club.

The quote from the manager states he got the letter on the 3rd September so can't see how we could argue that, however I'd be interested if any one knows if that arguement would apply to those who played today...

Does anyone know how many games he has actually played this season? It doesn't seem like he's played in many. My point being that the team has been winning without him so will he be missed anyway?

No, he's not all that.

Can he take Nick Scruton with him?

Even Huddersfield are not that desperate!

In my opinion it's a pity the higher paid so called first team players ever got over their injuries. It was a better team without them - it's only when they got back the losses came!

I would be surprised if Kopczak didn't know that he was playing for the new owners against Hull. What would you rate the chances of that being so, on a scale of 0 to 100? Was there anybody in the ground who didn't know?

I'd say it was pretty obvious that anyone who didn't want to be a Bull would not have been on the field today, they'd have resigned like Kopczak did, wouldn't they? But I'd have said the same about the Hull game too. The only difference being that seemingly Kopczak didn't get the news [iin writing[/i from the administrator till after that game.

I meant higher paid first choice players....

Of course he knew about the sale and the new owners but until he had written confirmation he won't have known the status of his employment. The letter he received could just have easily have been to inform him he was being made redundant.



Your question is pretty much what I what I was asking and with the same reasoning.

My point was that until he received the letter, playing for the Bulls couldn't be used as implied acceptance of the new contract with OK Bulls, whereas playing today after receiving it would. Therefore yes, the receipt of the letter and when it was received is the whole point.

This is pure assumption and if any one with more HR or contracts experience than me knows the answer I'd be happy to hear it.

it would not surprise me if whoever has approached him has said that this offer wont be on the table for long and when the season is over we will look else where!!!

Does his termination of his contract automatically release his player registration though?