molloy did his knee, out for the season

good prospect...hope he has a good season this time round

Same agent that landed you Brough even though still under contract. Wouldn't trust this guy as far as i could throw Crabtree. As far as i see it the agent initiated the move for Koppy before he was eligible to quit thus Bradford wanting a fee (even though i think they are entitiled to jack at moment). Wonder what will happen if you lot decide to walk away and Craig doesn't want to play for Bulls. The way i see it is if he this were to happen it would be a different case for any other club as they have not approached him when under contract and could sign him without any problems that you have had.

It's a tricky one isn't it. If, as you say, the agent approached the club, how could Huddersfield realistically be punished for being approached?

By listening to said approach.

Kopczak's legal standpoint is based on the Ranger's players being allowed to leave for free when that club went belly up. However, their argument was that their careers and livelihoods would be damaged because Rangers would be playing in the Scottish 3rd division, would have no access to european and by extension international football and would have to take a pay cut because of this drop in playing level.

None of that applies to Kopczak. He can refuse the TUPE, but as OK Bulls bought the club and if that includes the player registrations then they are entitled to ask for a fee to release that registration.

You are of course aware that Rangers players have played international football this season? You will also be aware that there was no "case" with regard to player registrations but the advice the SFA received was that a new club could not retain the registrations, that is of course under Scots Law and has not been tested in court. You are citing a reason that you believe means a precedent ,which actually is not a precedent, doesn't apply. That is of course a nonsense.

Lets watch and see what happens in the next few days.

One further, significant point. If hypothetically Huddersfield decided to sell Luke Robinson to London, Luke may not want to go to London, for whatever reason. If Luke does not want to move to London then he cannot be forced to agree to change Employers. The RFL cannot register Luke with London without his agreement, whatever Huddersfield & London wish.

Now reconsider that but change Huddersfield to Old Bradford Bulls, London to OK Bulls and Luke Robinson to Craig Kopczak. What is the difference?

Huddersfield Giants have been accused of enticing CK to break his contract, how do you break a contract that doesn't exist? CK has never had a contract with OK Bulls so how can a third party (OK Bulls) be entitled to interfere with his career?

As I said before, lets watch and see what happens.

Although the Bulls were not relegated I think the same argument might be utilised and it might stand up once barristers got involved. I think the RFL will do anything they can to make it go away.

Personally I would prefer to for their to be no flies on the club and I wouldn't be upset if he didn't sign, but I do find the way that certain individuals at the Bradford club have acted in this affair disappointing and it makes me more inclined to think, "Meh". They turned on Huddersfield when their focus should have been on an agent. He misled his player and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he misled Thewlis, or whoever else.

clubs are quite within their rights to approach other clubs to ask about the possibility of them releasing their players- which is what happened with brough. Giants approached Wakefield- not the player. Similarly widnes have approached us about players-nowt wrong with that under the rules. Giants and or others could have approached Bradford bulls- which would suggest to koppy and his agent interest in him as a player. We don't know the reality of it. the fact that rumours were about a very long time before kopczak terminated his contract suggests that was the case.

Highly unlikely a fee should be payable however the RFL work in very very strange ways!!!

If it was to be paid then could it be paid direct to the creditors, whichever team it was that chose to be screwed?

Shutts was doing only what the Giants asked him to do, and that was find some 'Big Forrards'

What else was he expected to do than sound out the possibility to players he represents.

Too many people on here think Agents are far more influential than they actually are. Their brief is to protect the interests of their clients and if that means touting them to other clubs, so be it, but a player must be made aware of anything that would affect their prospects and livelyhoods.

Sportsmen have a very short shelf life, so who can blame them for employing someone to take on the added stress of negotiating contracts and related matters, allowing the player to then concentrate on what they do best.

Once again everyone knows more than the people involved, wait until the report is published.If people only posted facts instead of guessing perhaps these forums wouldn't be so full of 'Bull****'.

Granted, but as a player agent surely his first responsibility is to serve the best interests of his players. I don't think he has done that in this particular instance.

true

but then we would have much of a forum!

Must admit Brearley 84 I do get a load of laughs from some postings but some of them do get close to the borderline between guessing and downright pork pieing.