Re: carvell : Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:51 am  

People in glasses houses that will be Giants then!!

Re: carvell : Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:53 am  

hullbg wrote:

Yet both could have been avoided if your club didn't bite off more than it could chew.

People in glass houses........

Tell me who we have ever illegally tapped up and I will withdraw. I don't recall any. This is twice now that other teams have done it to us and the RFL do not give a monkey's.

Maybe I will write them a letter....

Re: carvell : Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:06 am  

bit hard to tap up a player who has just had his contract anulled by his previous employer by them ceasing to exist and before he has actually agreed to be tupe'd over to the newco.......he is a free agent in the time space between, also he has a limted amount of time after a tupe'd situation if he was not consulted/kept aware of the ongoing situation.

Re: carvell : Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:14 am  

debaser wrote:

So I expect the RFL to come down hard on the respective parties for the illegal approaches. Just like they did over the Kopout affair. Oh hang on....

Will you also be expecting them to come down hard on those who go into administration again?

Re: carvell : Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:23 am  

pie.warrior wrote:

bit hard to tap up a player who has just had his contract anulled by his previous employer by them ceasing to exist and before he has actually agreed to be tupe'd over to the newco.......he is a free agent in the time space between, also he has a limted amount of time after a tupe'd situation if he was not consulted/kept aware of the ongoing situation.

Read the T&A today, gives a very good explanation from a sports lawyer how it works

Re: carvell : Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:43 am  

Erm directly from Hull? Radford and vaikona were not straight forward deals were they?

Solomona? the whole we will get him for free because they are relegated never happened did it?

Iestyn? some might say that was a form of tapping up ?

These are just a couple of examples off top of my head, we are by far not innocent of all this, we are just upset because we are very vulnerable to it at moment. what goes around comes around.
As for Tupe - like has been said he can cancel contract but as proven previously, we will be backed up when attempts to transfer his registration are made. You will get him but it wont be for nothing.

Whatever Mcdonnell has been paid off will still count against cap, I dont believe Half of mcdonnells wage and pitts would cover losing a decent two year deal for a year?

might kill any potential for a coaching career simply by his indecisiveness. Situation on leaving hull, situation now when he is coaching under 19's - may help himself short term but this could bite him. Interviewer would you describe yourself as loyal? (google says different)

Re: carvell : Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:52 am  

debaser wrote:

So I expect the RFL to come down hard on the respective parties for the illegal approaches. Just like they did over the Kopout affair. Oh hang on....

I would have thought recent events would have shown that whatever he intended many of OK's statements were not correct. I suspect that was due to niaivity rather than deceit but there you go.

When a club is in Administration and a Player's Agent approaches the Administrator for consent to speak to other clubs to protect his Client's interests the Administrator is obliged to give that consent. That happened for far more players than Craig Kopczak, many Bradford players quite legitimately had potential deals lined up. There were no illegal approaches. When the previous Bradford incarnation tried to Tupe players across to OK Bulls Craig Kopczak declined. You may not like that, but that is what happened.

Ok reported Giants to RFL who were obliged to investigate, in doing so Huddersfield Giants produced a copy of written consent to speak to Craig Kopczak. The RFL could not find anything other than they were entitled to sign the player but that Bradford were entitled to compensation to transfer the registration.

Ok no doubt looked a bit silly in RFL eyes but I suspect he was not very well advised. Ok later resurrected his claims after the Mason affair, that seems more to do with saying the right thing to the Bulls fanbase.

The Giants royally shafted Keith Mason and were rightly made to compensate him properly, that was shameful but did not in any way make discussing a future contract with Craig Kopczak an illegal approach.

Gareth Carvell is also entitled to decline TUPE transfer, CK has given a precedent, if GC wants to leave he can, do Bulls 2014 even have a SL licence? i am sure they will have the transfer endorsed, but that hasn't happened yet.

I do have sympathy with the supporters of Bradford Bulls, but you have to understand the bad guys are not Huddersfield Giants, Hull FC or Wakefield Trinity Wildcats. Those responsible for the angst you are being put through are the previous custodians of your club: Caisley, Hood, Whitcutt & OK amongst them, many astonishing levels of incompetance have been shown.

I hope for your sake the new lot are better.

Re: carvell : Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:58 am  

Indeed. They could hardly be much worse...?

Excellent post, GD.

Although the usual suspects on the Wakey forum are stupidly doing their level best to give people every reason to view them as bad guys too.

Re: carvell : Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:10 pm  

domthebull wrote: Whatever Mcdonnell has been paid off will still count against cap, I dont believe Half of mcdonnells wage and pitts would cover losing a decent two year deal for a year? I was under the assumption that if they never played they would be exempt from the cap..... however having read your point and nipping to check the rules and prove you woefully wrong, i hit a snag. http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... section=E1 E1:3:1 A Club’s “Players” are the 25 Players registered with the Club and eligible to play in the Super League who have the highest Salary Cap Values at the time in question, whether or not they have played for the Club in a Salary Cap Relevant Match in the Salary Cap Year to that date, in addition to all other players at the club who will or do play in a Salary Cap Relevant Match. Also if this was allowed, it could/would mean a very simple way to work around the cap.

domthebull wrote: Whatever Mcdonnell has been paid off will still count against cap, I dont believe Half of mcdonnells wage and pitts would cover losing a decent two year deal for a year? I was under the assumption that if they never played they would be exempt from the cap..... however having read your point and nipping to check the rules and prove you woefully wrong, i hit a snag. http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... section=E1 E1:3:1 A Club’s “Players” are the 25 Players registered with the Club and eligible to play in the Super League who have the highest Salary Cap Values at the time in question, whether or not they have played for the Club in a Salary Cap Relevant Match in the Salary Cap Year to that date, in addition to all other players at the club who will or do play in a Salary Cap Relevant Match. Also if this was allowed, it could/would mean a very simple way to work around the cap.

Re: carvell : Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:10 pm  

I also agree with GD