How many other SL clubs were after Fielden? Is his pension pot big enough to let him retire? How much does he enjoy playing the sport? Seems perfectly feasible Fielden is playing for £44K a year. Remember if you split the top 20 player salaries evenly at a club, it's £80K a year each. Now spread more of that to the big names and it's perfectly reasonable to see a rotational player with a poor injury record on £44K a year.

Yes, but in the course of dealing with it, when asked by the RFL investigator following Bradford's complaint against Huddersfield, sadly it is alleged the fact that a contract had been already agreed on 8 August was not disclosed.

Are you saying you think the RFL could reasonably ignore the evidence that has been reported?

Yes, I'd expect those would count against the cap. IIRC Wigan tried something like this a few years ago, providing contracts that still paid players after they had left the club, and had that part of the salary counted for the period the player was actually playing, not later.

kopzchak is on 60k a year

fielden is on 55k a year so not now on the big buck some people think.

whoever decided to give mason a 95k contract wants his head seeing too....no wonder the giants wanted out!

odonnell was released after 1 games this season and i believe he was on around 200k a year so that gives a big chunk of the salary cap up and also pays mason!

as does the fee we got for greg eden after he was sold pre season, think the club have prepared for this loss

If O'donnell played a game, his salary would count for SC purposes.

yes he played one. yeh would go towards the salary cap but at least his salary can go towards paying mason off, thats if we arent already insured for losses anyway

I thought thats what the 20k was for, my mistake.

I think the £20k was the "transfer fee", so that is unlikely to change now; however could be a case to answer for misconduct in lying to the RFL tribunal about when the deal was agreed.

Its like the Chris Huhne speeding offence. Its not the actual offence that is that bad, it is the lying about it afterwards that makes it much more serious.

I presume they lied to the tribunal to reduce the transfer fee that they were liable for, as the RFL would probably have taken a dimmer view of a club breaking the so called 'gentlemans agreement'.

No, you're right, the compo was decided on after the investigation, [itaking into account the known facts[/i.

The main point the Bulls seem to be making in the T&A report is that the Mason case evidence now suggests the RFL investigation was not told the fact that a contract had already been agreed on 8 August.

In general, do you think that the compensation to a club might be different if it was proved that a contracted player had in fact been tapped up? That said, I don't know how the figure was calculated, if not plucked out of the air, and anyway frankly don't expect the Bulls to get any more money out of this.

Regardless of that, though, do you think that, as a general point, if any club was found to have given false or misleading evidence to an RFL investigation, this would (and should) result in consequences for that club? I wasn't there, so am not saying Huddersfield did, but simply that there seem to be serious allegations and so fail to see how the RFL could possibly [inot [/iinvestigate them.

The RFL 'suggested' we pay £20,000 as compensation for breaking a 'gentlemans agreement' as they wouldn't let us register him before we had.....So we did, now it seems the fools who run our club are going to be in trouble again for lying the RFL about WHEN he signed the contract. Those responsible for this catalogue of errors seem to be free of blame from our Chairman though.

So, looks like after the excellent work of Agent Kopczak, Hudds are something like 600K down for next season.

Now, who else voted for our Sky deduction, again?

like i said ....a catalogue of errors, i cant believe the people i and others trust to run our club have allowed these appaling decisions to be made !!

Sky Sports show player's naked backsides on live TV nearly every other week during games, why did Huddersfield think they could sack a player for tweeting a pic of one?

can we have the money back we gave to you last season when you was going bust?

doubt we will be 600k down next season..see previous post i made about odonnell/eden/insurance

I wasn't going bust, and you didn't give me any money.




You're not an ostrich, are you?

Don't they have to play a number of games before their salary counts on the cap?

If I recall, in Tomkins' first season, people were speculated we stopped playing him as we didn't want his salary to count... (10 games, maybe?)

1 game IIRC Hull FC fell foul of this when Andy Last came out of retirement for 1 game due to an injury crisis.
His entire salary thus went on their cap and took them over.

It depends if they're counted in the 1st tier or 2nd tier. Effectively the 1st tier is the top 25 salaried players at the club. The 2nd tier is the rest.
Players in the 1st tier are counted on the cap regardless of whether they play a game or not.
Players in the 2nd tier must play a game before they're counted.

The 1st tier cap is £1.65m (plus various clauses/exemptions)
The 2nd tier cap is £75k

O'Donnell will count on the cap, but only the wage he collected. Not his full pa salary.

A comment attributed to the RFL [url=http://www.superleague.co.uk/article/28405/rfl-may-re-open-kopczak-dealat the end of this report:[/url



What "compromise agreement" would that be, then?

under the rules, it never mentions that the player is in agreement with the payment, although by accepting the payment they are probably said to have agreed to the compromise agreement / termination payment:

correct:



Therefore if LOD's contract was 200k p.a. but he left after one month of the year (and didnt take any further payment), his 'salary cap value' would be £16,666.

It a club brings a player out of retirement who is on the books as a coach, his entire coaching salary would count as his 'salary cap value' for the year, even if he only pays 5 minutes of 1 game,

You gave that money to the hardship fund actually which wasn't anything to do with the administrator (at that time the club).

That was a fund managed by the Bulls Foundation (a registered charity and separate to the company that went bust and the new company OK Bulls). It helped people pay their rent and put food on their tables while working for nothing due to the club being in administration which was greatly received and a very admirable thing to do.

If you gave it to the club you were actually giving it to the administrator to help pay his funds.

Nope, you've still lost me. What compromise agreement / termination payment are we talking about?

At any rate, it is irrelevant, since it can't be Mason - who would hardly have been taking Shudds to court after he had agreed some compromise payment!

Bulls want Hudds to come up with more cash for Kopczak here :- www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... k/?ref=rss

Bulls want Hudds to come up with more cash for Kopczak here :- www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... k/?ref=rss