The point of dispute here is quite simple as has been stated Rugby League contracts run 1st Nov onwards unless hey are terminated due to a transfer mid season.
If Connor was already 22 no problem but clearly Hull think they have found a way to avoid a significant compensation amount to Huddersfield by signing him from Dec 1st.
In the RFL rules it clearly states that compensation is due if we make him a contract offer which we did.
However what is not in the rules is whether it is the contract signing date or contract start date that determines this. Typical shoddy RL not having worked things through.
Bearing in mind the '22' rule is to protect clubs who have developed players from juniors sense would be that it would be the day he signs to become a Hull FC player or you would have signed him from Nov 1st the day after his contract ends with us.
Whilst he remains contracted to us until seasons end he has been announced as a Hull FC player and signed a contract so stating prior to his contract end date with us and prior to his 22nd birthday I'm not bothered for keeping him but if roles were reversed and we were signing one of your players on this basis you'd be crying 'foul' just the same.
If you've found a loophole and it works good luck but you might be the next club to get caught out by this and I don't blame Hull just the wishy washy RFL as the Dec 1 contract start is clearly about avoiding compensation which is not why the '22' rule was introduced.
ccs wrote:Well Hull appears to understand the rules...
The point of dispute here is quite simple as has been stated Rugby League contracts run 1st Nov onwards unless hey are terminated due to a transfer mid season.
If Connor was already 22 no problem but clearly Hull think they have found a way to avoid a significant compensation amount to Huddersfield by signing him from Dec 1st.
In the RFL rules it clearly states that compensation is due if we make him a contract offer which we did.
However what is not in the rules is whether it is the contract signing date or contract start date that determines this. Typical shoddy RL not having worked things through.
Bearing in mind the '22' rule is to protect clubs who have developed players from juniors sense would be that it would be the day he signs to become a Hull FC player or you would have signed him from Nov 1st the day after his contract ends with us.
Whilst he remains contracted to us until seasons end he has been announced as a Hull FC player and signed a contract so stating prior to his contract end date with us and prior to his 22nd birthday I'm not bothered for keeping him but if roles were reversed and we were signing one of your players on this basis you'd be crying 'foul' just the same.
If you've found a loophole and it works good luck but you might be the next club to get caught out by this and I don't blame Hull just the wishy washy RFL as the Dec 1 contract start is clearly about avoiding compensation which is not why the '22' rule was introduced.
Joined: Feb 09 2004 Posts: 7735 Location: Here there and everywhere
not sure why everyone is getting their pants in a tangle about this.
One club is stating that everything has been ratified by the RFL. The RFL would be very quick to deny this if it needed to be denied.
The player has remained fairly tight lipped on this other then comments make in the post match interview on Thursday evening.
This issue now stems from a regional rag who have chosen to hide behind the "The Post understands" get out safety net which basically implies there is a rumour doing the rounds and they have no solid evidence.
Until either the player or the club(s) state otherwise, I would go with what has been announced by the parties involved.
It's nothing to do with loopholes, players can only be registered to play with one club at any one time (ignoring dual-reg/loan deals).
He has a contract with you until 31st October, and then with us from the 1st November.
If he was still 21 on 1st November, then that's a different matter, as the RFL rules clearly state.
Clubs/players often announce they have signed for another team while still fulfilling their existing contract, it's nothing new.
He was offered a contract by Huddersfield and had until the end of May to accept/decline it. He chose to reject it and was then free to look elsewhere.
Is Hodgson the new Griffin, or is it all about pace?
Joined: Sep 15 2007 Posts: 562 Location: The Darkside!
I think the statement issued by Hull FC pretty much clears things up as regard to who's player he is next year. He seemed happy to be coming and there's little doubt that everything has been done correctly with regard to the contract. I think both clubs need to know the players intentions and it's disapointing that the player or his agent have not cleared the matter up so that both clubs and the player can concentrate on the end of season battles they face albeit at opposite ends of the table. Only Connor can say whether or not he intends to play for his new club. I can't see the Giants stumping up a big fee for him just out of sheer embarrassment at having messed things up so badly. Yet they are the one's valuing him at £100,000 plus. So if he wants to stay with them I hope Hull go to town on the both of them for creating this mess in the first place..
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the (Dark) Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."
i see it as a non-story,Hull have signed him well within the rules with the blessing of the RFL,Huddersfield don't like it and without checking their facts with the RFL have spouted off to the media. This has created the problem and caused hull fc to defend their actions and clear things up. Connor has no need to come out and say anything other than what he has already said. it done and dusted and he's moved on. It's a shame the Huddersfield club can't do the same and accept he's slipped away,it happens to all clubs at some time and this time around it's their turn to suck it up.
easty wrote"If you want to watch the best R.L players in the country then at the moment you'll be choosing Leeds or Hull F.C. If you want to watch your R.L in one of the best stadiums in the country you'll be again wanting Hull F.C."
I'm sure that the club have been in dialogue with connor so there's no need for him to say anything and it would leave him as a target for the hudds fans for the rest of the season if he does.
fartown since 1961 wrote:The point of dispute here is quite simple as has been stated Rugby League contracts run 1st Nov onwards unless hey are terminated due to a transfer mid season.
If Connor was already 22 no problem but clearly Hull think they have found a way to avoid a significant compensation amount to Huddersfield by signing him from Dec 1st.
In the RFL rules it clearly states that compensation is due if we make him a contract offer which we did.
However what is not in the rules is whether it is the contract signing date or contract start date that determines this. Typical shoddy RL not having worked things through.
Bearing in mind the '22' rule is to protect clubs who have developed players from juniors sense would be that it would be the day he signs to become a Hull FC player or you would have signed him from Nov 1st the day after his contract ends with us.
Whilst he remains contracted to us until seasons end he has been announced as a Hull FC player and signed a contract so stating prior to his contract end date with us and prior to his 22nd birthday I'm not bothered for keeping him but if roles were reversed and we were signing one of your players on this basis you'd be crying 'foul' just the same.
If you've found a loophole and it works good luck but you might be the next club to get caught out by this and I don't blame Hull just the wishy washy RFL as the Dec 1 contract start is clearly about avoiding compensation which is not why the '22' rule was introduced.
Jake Connor will be 22 on the 18th October, so whatever the reason for his contract with Hull starting on the 1st December as opposed to the 1st November it seems it has nothing to do with avoiding having to pay compensation.
Last edited by Mars on Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
