Re: carvell : Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:51 am  

roger daly wrote: Unbelievable, so Hull are helping us out by getting Carvell and Gales wage off the payroll. you are aware your club offered Gale to us only a few weeks ago! http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... story.html

roger daly wrote: Unbelievable, so Hull are helping us out by getting Carvell and Gales wage off the payroll. you are aware your club offered Gale to us only a few weeks ago! http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... story.html

Re: carvell : Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:00 pm  

Didn't the RFL put a ban on clubs poaching our players the last time we were going through a change of ownership? I don't know why the same can't be done now. If this new guy who's making an offer to buy the club happens to be loaded (please let him be loaded!) then all our financial worries could be over soon and there'd be no need for players to be worried about being paid. According to the T&A there is a 28 day period after admin for any new offers to buy the club, we should get at least that amount of time protection against the vultures.

Re: carvell : Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:03 pm  

I agree with an earlier comment re Gale, is he contracted or not following Tupe? also seems strange to have him answering questions at season launch dinner on Saturday then considering future. he has also been offered a new contract to counter Hull interest, this must have been sorted before Sat night. Just seems strange timing, there must have been other players available for sat night

[Bulliac]

Re: carvell : Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:04 pm  

Dave K. wrote:

As far as I know, if you release a player before he has played a game in the season, it doesn't count on the cap.

I do love the way people talk of players being 'released' in such a casual manner.

There are two sides to any contract and if the player being 'released' doesn't get another offer, equal or better than the one he already has, he has every right to decline the generous offer of being 'released'. Players can't be released without their consent - except in a very few exceptional circumstances, which would take a court or an RFL enquiry at least to decide. Why would any player being dumped, just accept it to suit the club?

Re: carvell : Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:13 pm  

Cows wrote:

Didn't the RFL put a ban on clubs poaching our players the last time we were going through a change of ownership? I don't know why the same can't be done now. If this new guy who's making an offer to buy the club happens to be loaded (please let him be loaded!) then all our financial worries could be over soon and there'd be no need for players to be worried about being paid. According to the T&A there is a 28 day period after admin for any new offers to buy the club, we should get at least that amount of time protection against the vultures.

I think it was more of mutual agreement between clubs at the time as you have no real right to obstruct the players that way. As fans we often forget this is the players job and their livelihood we're talking about.

Re: carvell : Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:21 pm  

number 6 wrote: you are aware your club offered Gale to us only a few weeks ago! http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... story.html "Hull tried to sign the 25-year-old at the start of pre-season, only for their offer to be knocked back" doesn't sound like we offered him to Hull at all? "But with Hull now able to make the most of Bradford's financial woes and take Gale for free rather than pay a fee" - Classy.

number 6 wrote: you are aware your club offered Gale to us only a few weeks ago! http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... story.html "Hull tried to sign the 25-year-old at the start of pre-season, only for their offer to be knocked back" doesn't sound like we offered him to Hull at all? "But with Hull now able to make the most of Bradford's financial woes and take Gale for free rather than pay a fee" - Classy.

Re: carvell : Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:26 pm  

feebleweasel wrote:

"Hull tried to sign the 25-year-old at the start of pre-season, only for their offer to be knocked back" doesn't sound like we offered him to Hull at all?

"But with Hull now able to make the most of Bradford's financial woes and take Gale for free rather than pay a fee" - Classy.

"Hull tried to sign the 25-year-old at the start of pre-season, only for their offer to be knocked back. It's understood the Bulls then offered the ex-London pivot to Hull last month, only for coach Lee Radford to turn the West Yorkshire club down due to the arrival of Aussie stand-off Jordan Rankin."

You appear to have stopped reading just before the bit I've underlined.

Re: carvell : Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:33 pm  

Neil HFC wrote:

"Hull tried to sign the 25-year-old at the start of pre-season, only for their offer to be knocked back. It's understood the Bulls then offered the ex-London pivot to Hull last month, only for coach Lee Radford to turn the West Yorkshire club down due to the arrival of Aussie stand-off Jordan Rankin."

You appear to have stopped reading just before the bit I've underlined.

You're right. So now I'm thinking you don't actually need him but are taking him for free just because you can? Good luck in the future and here's hoping you continue to win nothing in the future.

Re: carvell : Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:59 pm  

Word on the Hull board now is Gale is staying with us

Re: carvell : Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:24 pm  

number 6 wrote:

have sympathy for the bulls fans, but not for the club, they did it to us with vaikona and radford, albeit different owners, what comes around goes around as they say

Oh dear, you need really need to move on.

Or people will start talking about Gateshead, and then it will get people all angry about the inconsistency of the RFL all over again.