Re: Craig kopczak : Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:49 pm  

Noel Cleal wrote:

No arguing about it, his contract is void as the company he worked for doesn't exist anymore. This happened the second the club went into administration. Players can, if they choose, sign with the new club (OK Bulls Ltd) but they have no obligation to sign any contract. All Bradford players are free agents regardless of what the RFL or OK Bulls Ltd think.

The administrator could end the employment of any employee of the old company at any time and any player could have left. Bradford have done well not to lose any players before now. I guess the other clubs have been sensitive to the situation (or unaware of it) by not signing the player formerly under contract at the Bull. But now the Bulls are safe it's open seaon.

A company doesn't cease to exist once it's in administration, only when it's declared insolvent. A company can come out of administration and return to profit. Employees remain employed while a company is in administration and if the company is taken over then the employees are transferred under TUPE.

Re: Craig kopczak : Sun Sep 09, 2012 3:44 pm  

Harry Pinner wrote:

A company doesn't cease to exist once it's in administration, only when it's declared insolvent. A company can come out of administration and return to profit. Employees remain employed while a company is in administration and if the company is taken over then the employees are transferred under TUPE.

But it would seem that there is a legal precedent with Rangers.

Re: Craig kopczak : Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:17 pm  

Harry Pinner wrote:

A company doesn't cease to exist once it's in administration, only when it's declared insolvent. A company can come out of administration and return to profit. Employees remain employed while a company is in administration and if the company is taken over then the employees are transferred under TUPE.

You can refuse to be TUPE'd if you choose too. It's a regulation to protect the employee not the employer.

Re: Craig kopczak : Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:40 pm  

The issue if you read on the Bulls board is that he is arguing that his contract was cancelled on 30/8 before it was TUPE'd but he then played on the 1/9 after the deadline for TUPE which i think they will argue over, but with Hudds in the picture and possible case of tapping up a player we will have to see how this pans out.

I remember a few years ago a team was deducted points for making an illegal approach to a player, koppy hasnt really set the world on fire but he is consistant

Re: Craig kopczak : Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:52 pm  

Well there you go. He can't say he didn't TUPE over if he played after the deadline because by playing after he was transferred is an acceptance of those terms unless he's submitted a written statement prior to the deadline saying he didn't accept it.

Re: Craig kopczak : Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:29 am  

broadybull87 wrote:

The issue if you read on the Bulls board is that he is arguing that his contract was cancelled on 30/8 before it was TUPE'd but he then played on the 1/9 after the deadline for TUPE which i think they will argue over, but with Hudds in the picture and possible case of tapping up a player we will have to see how this pans out.

I remember a few years ago a team was deducted points for making an illegal approach to a player, koppy hasnt really set the world on fire but he is consistant

Oh dear. On the 30th did OK write to all the players explaining their rights re TUPE 2006? The answer is no. As his agent explains a letter was received 2/3 days later! CK has responded in a 'reasonable time'. Indeed it is possible that players could still opt out.

I think your memory is failing you. Around 12 years ago wakey were found guilty of an 'illegal' approach to Robinson. They received a £5K fine. In 2006 the bulls were charged re solomona. They were exonerated. His agent had flagged up solomona to other clubs when wakey's future was under threat. The Bulls did not discuss actual contracts. So an agent asking for interest in players in a crisis club appears okay.

Re: Craig kopczak : Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:58 am  

The employee in these cases should be protected. If they want to be TUPEd over, they should be entitled to. If they don't want to, they should be free to walk.

We need to get our lawyers onto the case just in case this happens to Hull KR and Scott Taylor and Josh Hodgson become available.

Re: Craig kopczak : Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:44 am  

Saddened! wrote:

The employee in these cases should be protected. If they want to be TUPEd over, they should be entitled to. If they don't want to, they should be free to walk.

We need to get our lawyers onto the case just in case this happens to Hull KR and Scott Taylor and Josh Hodgson become available.

As I'm sure you will be delighted to hear, Scott Taylor is probably already moving to one of three clubs willing to pay a fee for him.

Re: Craig kopczak : Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:47 am  

SFW wrote:

As I'm sure you will be delighted to hear, Scott Taylor is probably already moving to one of three clubs willing to pay a fee for him.

Those ambitious clubs that win trophies. I remember when we were one. Those were the days.

Re: Craig kopczak : Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:10 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

:( Those ambitious clubs that win trophies. I remember when we were one. Those were the days.

I think the ambitious tag is getting a little dull. I no one has bottomless pits of money and just because the stadium is built that does not mean the costs have stopped. I think we have not had the best recruitment, but I doubt it's a lack of ambition.

When we signed Perry a current SOO player we were not saying this lacks ambition. Same for the signing of Shenton or LMS etc etc.

Just because some signing don't work out in hindsight, that does not mean at the time they were a poor decision. No one can predict how a player will cope moving from one club to another. Others like Lance and Laffranchi are quality players, just because we play them out of position it does not mean they are any less quality.

Like I say some recruitment issues, but hardly a lack of ambition.