The RFL have finished the investigation now and we are just waiting to agree a fee with Bradford for Kopczak before it can be announced. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ord_Bulls/ Bottom of the article.

The RFL have finished the investigation now and we are just waiting to agree a fee with Bradford for Kopczak before it can be announced. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ord_Bulls/ Bottom of the article.

Bit of an ambiguous comment, isn't it. The RFL are "hoping"!

How do these things work? Oh aiii that's it offer em a penny for every pound owed after changing the company name. The RFL normally accept that sort of thing.

I'm amazed how Bradford are looking for a fee for a player that isn't really theirs in the true gist of things!!!

Give em walker in exchange.

I would guess that might not be far off what happens to save face and it will be Walker plus an undisclosed fee.

If the two clubs don't agree a fee a RFL Tribunal will do it. Not sure of the timescale but it's in the interests of both to sort it asap.

Heaven forbid he gets badly injured playing for Wales whilst in limbo as then it really will get messy.

is walker off to bradford??

is he out of contract with us..i know hes been told he can go

if hes out of contract then doubt we can give him as part of the bargaining

ken davy will have to get his wallet out i feel

the cheek of bradford though after all what the super league clubs did for them to keep them afloat! including our club when we gave the sales of tickets to them, maybe we could ask for that back!

Well the report's findings aren't public knowledge yet, so you might not end up having to pay anything. But if the RFL rule that you DO, then it can only mean that your club reneged on some kind of gentleman's agreement or something similar, and basically lied to the RFL and every other SL club who were also part of said agreement.
This wouldn't be Bradford kicking up a fuss trying to get money out of you, this would be a decision by the RFL based on an independent investigation. Huddersfield would only have themselves to blame.

But like I said, let's wait and see first. After all, we're only going on what's been printed in a Bradford rag so far, which probably isn't the most impartial source of info

Walker has been in the academy / development system for a number of years, i think this means he warrants a fee for us investing in him, much like we had to pay to Bradford for Larne!

That's right fro-nips. We offered him a contract which he turned down so now he will command a fee for anyone wanting to give him a contract.

That article isn't worth the paper it isn't printed on

The report has been sent to the Bulls, it may well say no illegal move was made.
The RFL may be hoping the bulls see sense and let the player go!

I suspect the giants will get the player for nothing, or not at all.

Eorl, fielden, mason, mullally, Patrick, Johnson, Ta'ai...
We have a much stronger front row than last season already- if giants have to pay I suspect they will back out and use the money for a halfback.

Exactly, he isn't needed so much any more so either the Bulls will have to release him or pay him what he wants.

Interesting stuff, and interesting timings of various announcements, a few facts, make of them what you will:

1. The RFL were involved in discussions with OK Bulls prior to their takeover. Any assurances given have not been made public.
2. On player transfer Craig Kopczak rejected his change of Employer, as he is legally entitled to do.
3. Kopczak's insurance is sorted so he can play for Wales. The insurers must know whom they are indemnifying.
4. The RFL have questioned various people about the "Kopczak Affair" following Bradford's complaint.
5. The RFL have not released any statement, nor do they appear to have charged any party with any form of misconduct.
6. Jarrod Sammut has received a further dispensation from the RFL, that is a relaxation of rules not an entitlement.
7. The only public statements have come through the local paper in Bradford.

There will be all sorts of opinions on how the above should be interpreted, however if there had been any illegal approach for CK it is highly unlikely that the parties involved would admit it, therefore I think it unlikely there is any evidence to charge anyone.

I assume that the T&A story has come from information provided by the Bulls, I may be wrong, but it seems likely and I don't have any issue with that, but I will regard that information in that light.

It does appear to me that the issue here is not the Giants conduct, who knows what really happened, but there appears only to be assertion not proof of misconduct. No the real issue seems to be the expectations OK Bulls had when buying the club, what assurances were given by the RFL, were they sold a pup?

Can anyone think of a good reason to give Jarrod Sammut a dispensation?