Re: carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:52 pm  

I particularly like the comment about "where will we be if we don't honour contracts?"

Admin, that's where you will be. But you knew that already, didn't you?

No hint of irony at all.

Re: carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:53 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

Hmmm not sure I'd agree with that. I can't see too much wrong with the statement but perhaps that's just me.

How long he was receiving wages and how many sponsored cars he has have bugger all to do with anything. They're free to put what they want in there I guess but it seems pretty churlish to be talking about that. They're just not relevant. Either he has a valid contract or he doesn't. How good the sex was before you got dumped is not what you put in your hastily written refusal to accept that she can take the dog.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:59 pm  

I don't quite see it like that. The tone of our press releases is more chatty and personal of late. That will appeal to the core audience far more than sterile perfectly worded statements.

Keep in mind, that you may well be a sophisticated and intelligent gent but a cursory glance at Facebook suggests that isn't the Bulls demographic.

Re: carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:00 pm  

I'm actually pretty sure Bradford statement about the company change not changing employment conditions is actually incorrect but that will come out in the wash. If any of his conditions changes, like working conditions or wages it's grounds for constructive dismissal and he would be free of his contract if he chooses it. The only issue is if he has taken wages while in understanding of those changes for a prolonged period which demonstrates agreement to these conditions (my understanding).

Most Bradford can get is lost of earnings which can't be demonstrated here in my opinion.

In short, reckon Bradford will make some noise about it, then employment solicitors will get involved, they try to claim loss of earnings, Carvel will decline and then it will get dropped. Happens all time, it's almost templated.

Re: carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:01 pm  

vbfg wrote:

This statement admits for the first time that he didn't agree to transfer his contract. Is there any basis on which that refusal can in turn be refused?

TUPE is not as cut and dry and many on here make out. It's basically a bit of legislation to bridge between UK law and EU law and as such can have more than a few twisty turny bits. Now, that's basically an over simplification of the situation but really, it's meant to be protection for employees when company ownership changes hands, it's not meant for getting out of contracts that you don't want to fulfil.

Re: carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:08 pm  

RFL become a laughing stock, but what changes there!!

The guy has taken a good wage (and a car) for months and given nothing for the team. RFL should have stepped in, made Hull cover that costs and then we all move on.
After all he's ready the play on Friday because of us.

You never see a football manager talking about another teams player! Not releasing statements saying there going to sign in, and just start training and register a player.
Absolute joke!

Re: carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:20 pm  

bullboy101 wrote:

RFL become a laughing stock, but what changes there!!

The guy has taken a good wage (and a car) for months and given nothing for the team. RFL should have stepped in, made Hull cover that costs and then we all move on.
After all he's ready the play on Friday because of us.

You never see a football manager talking about another teams player! Not releasing statements saying there going to sign in, and just start training and register a player.
Absolute joke!

It's actually nothing to do with Hull FC. From a legal perspective all the RFL have done is allow the signing of a free agent as Carvell has likely issued a constructive dismissal claim. This releases him from his employment, regardless of if there is a dispute of him been in violation of his contract. Something an employment tribunal would decide, but this won't even get near a tribunal session. If they won they would have to show a clear case for lost of earnings, which in very much doubt they can do.

Bradford make a fair comment that this is a major issue with sporting contracts. It's certainly not a "precedent" as they suggest, it's happened a lot of times previously including too us in Cooke. It's a fundamental flaw in sports contracts, they really are not worth the paper they are written on.

Re: carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:31 pm  

All we need now is the Points deduction and we can all feel happy and contented. We can draw a line under it and wait for the next series of bad news articles. Maybe we'll get back to playing Rugby at some time!

Re: carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:57 pm  

roofaldo2 wrote:

TBH, this should have been the club's stance for Kopczak. A similar stance should also have been taken regarding Orford, Whitehead and Bateman. For far to long we've been a soft touch when it comes to enforcing contracts.

If another club tried the player fiddling we've had to endure with a Leeds or Wigan player for example, they'd get served so fast they'd think Usain Bolt delivered them.

Totally agree.....

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

Isn't the qualifying period for Constructive Dismissal the same as Unfair Dismissal? I.e 2 years? I'd have thought TUPE was more likely but didn't he remain at the club after the deadline?