Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:42 pm  

Bal wrote:

Hmmmm... his transfer would have being under TUPE which doesn't actually change conditions on its own, they could well be right.

However, any other condition changes, I heard from example they had reduced salaries would be enough for constructive dismissal.

What that means is they rejected his rejection of the new company due to terms in his contract whereby the term 'the club' referred to Bradford Bulls no matter who owned it! It's amateurish at best, they can't honestly believe that they can get away with that crap? They'll get taken to the cleaners in court.

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:44 pm  

The club doesn't exist in law so can't enter into a contract. His contract was with OK bulls Ltd (or whatever it was called) and he has every right to refuse the TUPE transfer. bradford are FUBAR'd

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:46 pm  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

I tend to agree with you on this. Employees are paid by companies, not clubs. Also if the RFL have registered Carvell as a Hull player, would it be safe to assume the noises being made earlier in the week regarding Bradford holding his registration are now a none issue? Have they relinquished his registration?

He can't have been registered as he didn't have a contract with the new company, i'm assuming (although with the RFL that could be dangerous) they wouldn't have been able to register him without a valid contract, which obviously allows us to, and is probably why the RFL had stated they'd have no problem registering him with us.

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:47 pm  

Such a timely boost to bring one of my favourite players ever back home on the eve of the new season. Cheers AP & Radders!

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:50 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Such a timely boost to bring one of my favourite players ever back home on the eve of the new season. Cheers AP & Radders!

Pre Feka and pre Lynch?

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:56 pm  

Excellent piece of business, strengthens the pack and adds some real go forward.

Certainly gives me more hope of matching Cats pack on Friday.

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:03 pm  

*1865* wrote:

He can't have been registered as he didn't have a contract with the new company, i'm assuming (although with the RFL that could be dangerous) they wouldn't have been able to register him without a valid contract, which obviously allows us to, and is probably why the RFL had stated they'd have no problem registering him with us.

I know its a different scenario but with Cooke, the lack of a signed contract was appeared to be incidental to the registration and he was subsequently registered with the RFL as a rovers player. If the RFL are registering Carvell as a Hull player (and therefore a free agent) they must believe his contract with BB was null and void. Either way should Bradford's grievance be with the player or the RFL?

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:14 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

Pre Feka and pre Lynch?

But simultaneously with Thackray. Do you see a pattern emerging?

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:22 pm  

I would have thought Bratfud would have more pressing things to spend money on than a futile legal action.

I also think it would be foolish of them to upset the RFL given their recent predicament. No official decision has been made yet on a possible points deduction for going into administration. Again.

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:23 pm  

Mild mannered Janitor wrote:

I know its a different scenario but with Cooke, the lack of a signed contract was appeared to be incidental to the registration and he was subsequently registered with the RFL as a rovers player. If the RFL are registering Carvell as a Hull player (and therefore a free agent) they must believe his contract with BB was null and void. Either way should Bradford's grievance be with the player or the RFL?

In the Cooke situation, it was probably a failure of the RFL, as it was just a continuation of a contract somebody probably registered Cookie without even checking for a signed contract.
In this instance, it's hard to find blame with anyone but the Bulls for this situation, Carvell had rejected the newco and they've decided to just ignore that on some whim of a part of his contract which is extremely amateurish and utterly unenforceable. The RFL will have wanted to see contracts because of the whole TUPE thing.