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?

Wow. As a Hudds fan of long standing who remembers exactly how Bulls fans treated our club when we were in a similar financial situation I honestly didnt realise you werethat full of bitterness and hatred - how wrong can you be.
I also remember a short few weeks ago how the club was "called" by fans who had their facts wrong regarding tickets and money for tickets and a boycott called for- and were made to eat their words - by the very man being vilified on here today. That man generously gave to your club (dont remember you helping us out in our hour of need) just a few weeks ago.
Yet again the knives are out against us - again without facts being known.
What a good job the bitterness directed towards our club from Bulls fans isnt reciprocated from the fans and the board at the Giants. Im beginning to wish it was.
Please you bitter twisted people dont come to Huddersfield-your kind arent welcome.

You've hit the nail on the head there!

Wow, you must not post on Huddersfield board that often if that's your opinion of it.

Employment issues in insolvency is something I regularly advise on as an employment solicitor.

TUPE transfers occur by operation of law, it's not something a buyer can decide. In admins it usually occurs when the new co starts trading. Any employee employed just before transfer who hasn't objected to transfer in writing automatically transfers to the new company on the same terms as before. The new co stand in the old co's shoes.

It would be interesting to know when/if the new co took over running the business of the bulls.

Huddersfield fans aren't bitter towards Bradford? That is the greatest post ever to be written

I don't know, but I'm not sure it does. Didn't we hold Karl Pryce's registration when he left us for Union?

Also, wasn't the whole thing with Harris over Bradford getting him to break a contract? And we lost that case. So precedent set there, I think.

Given all clubs agreed to not approach any contracted Bradford player, surely this does mean that the club approached a player under contract?

That was the one I was thinking of. Pryce's registration was held until the end of his contracted period so when he went to Wigan there was a fee agreed to transfer his registration.
Inducement to breech contract is difficult in this case because if Kopczak has legally terminated it there is no breech so how can there be inducement to breech.
Of course all the fine moral folk who keep telling us Ok Bulls have a moral duty to pay the debts of the old company will obviously be equally annoyed if anybody has approached Kopczak while under contract even if the termination is perfectly legal, as was the sale of the Bulls to the new company...

Interesting. What happens if the administrator hadn't discussed TUPE options before transfer or given the employees the option and/or time to reject it?