Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 7:33 am  

I think we should let the club deal with the Carvell situation, we, as fans have no control as to the outcome. The man obviously has no loyalty to the club. We should just get behind the players who want to play for the Bulls.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:35 am  

Just setting aside the details of the TUPE vs resignation issue, what is the point of registering a contract with the RFL? I'm not suggesting they've done anything wrong here but Blake Solly made it clear the RFL would be registering Carvell's contract with Hull, almost as if the Bulls contention he was contracted to them was wholly irrelevant.

Could, for instance, Danny Kirmond resign at Wakefield, approach Castleford, seek and obtain a contract to play, and then be registered by the RFL, on the basis that the matters were between Wakefield and Kirmond? This seems odd as we've frequently heard about a club 'holding' a players registration, which suggests a club has to agree to the registration transferring.

I await, all the 'Carvell wasn't getting paid' stuff but that's none of the RFL's business and at this stage is one word against another.

[Kosh]

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:48 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

Just setting aside the details of the TUPE vs resignation issue, what is the point of registering a contract with the RFL? I'm not suggesting they've done anything wrong here but Blake Solly made it clear the RFL would be registering Carvell's contract with Hull, almost as if the Bulls contention he was contracted to them was wholly irrelevant.

Could, for instance, Danny Kirmond resign at Wakefield, approach Castleford, seek and obtain a contract to play, and then be registered by the RFL, on the basis that the matters were between Wakefield and Kirmond? This seems odd as we've frequently heard about a club 'holding' a players registration, which suggests a club has to agree to the registration transferring.

As we discovered with the Paul Cooke fiasco, you can't 'hold' a player's registration without a valid contract. The 'playing registration' is simply the formal registration of a valid contract with the RFL - no contract, no registration.

The RFL are only interested in whether RFL rules have been broken, and if there is no evidence of this they will happily transfer the registration and let the two clubs handle the dispute through the courts if they want to. Their default position is always to do nothing if they can possibly get away with it.

Re: Carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:51 am  

Had doubts from before signing so best he is gone, no one wants a player who isn't 100% committed.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:19 am  

Kosh wrote:

As we discovered with the Paul Cooke fiasco, you can't 'hold' a player's registration without a valid contract. The 'playing registration' is simply the formal registration of a valid contract with the RFL - no contract, no registration.

The RFL are only interested in whether RFL rules have been broken, and if there is no evidence of this they will happily transfer the registration and let the two clubs handle the dispute through the courts if they want to. Their default position is always to do nothing if they can possibly get away with it.

But Cooke's contract had expired, therefore the contract registered with the RFL was clearly invalid. I don't see the parallel. Carvell's contract hasn't expired and only came into force on 1st November.

Even taking into account what you're saying, are you saying the RFL have decided, irrespective of the Bradford clubs assertion, that his contract is invalid? Seems a bold move considering what the club are saying.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:27 am  

Thats what happened with Iestyn. Leeds sent us a letter saying he was registered with them, we had legal advice otherwise, RFL registered his contract with us.

So in this case we are now Leeds. Lets see if we can win this one, to the extent they won theirs...

[Kosh]

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:35 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

But Cooke's contract had expired, therefore the contract registered with the RFL was clearly invalid. I don't see the parallel. Carvell's contract hasn't expired and only came into force on 1st November.

Even taking into account what you're saying, are you saying the RFL have decided, irrespective of the Bradford clubs assertion, that his contract is invalid? Seems a bold move considering what the club are saying.

Cooke's contract had been extended. He hadn't signed the extension but had been taking the improved pay and conditions for a season or so when he walked out. In employment law that would normally constitute acceptance of the contract. See the similarity now?

Carvell claims to have not accepted the TUPE transfer. The latest Bulls statement seems to accept that. Therefore - on the face of it - Carvell's contract was in a similar state to Cooke's. This is why I said some while ago that I wouldn't be surprised to see the RFL sanction the move.

The RFL have seen Carvell's contract. They have almost certainly been provided with evidence of his TUPE refusal by Carvell or his agent. Clearly they feel that Carvell was a free agent and has since signed a legitimate contract with Hull FC - and all within RFL rules. Time will tell if they're right or not.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:45 am  

Wow, this is messy, TUPE is usually underpinned by case law, hence establishment of legal precedents, and the only true winners being the legal firms & their fees. In Carvell's case a couple of key points to consider are that:

Objecting to a transfer means:

1. Their employment ends on the date of the transfer, so they do not need to work out their notice period and are free to go to work elsewhere immediately.

2. They may be released from restrictive covenants in their contract. There has been a High Court case where the new employer could not enforce restrictive covenants against an employee whose employment did not transfer over to it

Hence, so long has he clearly stated an objection to the transfer (no reason is required) then point 1 is valid, and there's scope within point 2 to prevent the rentention of his registration by Bradford (noting legal precedent set albeit this could be countered), but all this will need legal expertise, arguement and cost to sort out.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:12 am  

Adeybull wrote:

Absolutely.

And some old hands on here may remember me getting my 'nads chewed off on these forums when I supported Hull FC and its fans some years ago in the face of all the crap about the goalposts and similar incidents? But I stand by everything I said at the time. DO not judge a club, and its fans, by the actions of a stupid minority.

But it was a response to a guy who was taking the moral high ground now, secure in the knowledge that your club now has a wealthy owner and hopefully one who will not tolerate some of the nonsense in the recent past from some staff and players? A couple of years ago, he would not have been able to say what he did.

So, as with you guys, what happened in the past at Bradford should surely have no bearing on the current situation?

I've been on this Bulls board long enough to know the majority yourself included are good, honest folk with a real passion for their club. Unfortunately this kind of thing will stir emotion and reaction to silly irrelevant comments so I totally understand your response.

Lets hope this doesn't drag on too long and we can all get back to talking about Rugby League.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:13 am  

shinymcshine wrote:

Wow, this is messy,

You can say that again

shinymcshine wrote:

Wow, this is messy,

shinymcshine wrote:

...the only true winners being the legal firms & their fees.

...and your problem is...?

shinymcshine wrote:

... all this will need legal expertise, arguement and cost to sort out.

Maybe not so much cost. According to the website of the company the Bulls have dealing with it, provided the Bulls follow their advice then all costs are covered.