Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:20 am  

Kosh wrote:

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.

So the RFL are taking a view on the validity of contracts, even where there is a dispute between the parties, and in this case DECIDING, the contract between Carvell and the Bradford club is invalid. I just can't see that.

I'm not sure we're any further forward. The RFL cannot act as arbiter/judge in these matters and i'm still unsure what the point of registration is, and specifically what the 'holding' of registration means if the title can be transferred without a party'e agreement.

[Kosh]

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:29 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

So the RFL are taking a view on the validity of contracts, even where there is a dispute between the parties, and in this case DECIDING, the contract between Carvell and the Bradford club is invalid. I just can't see that.

I'm not sure we're any further forward. The RFL cannot act as arbiter/judge in these matters and i'm still unsure what the point of registration is, and specifically what the 'holding' of registration means if the title can be transferred without a party'e agreement.

The RFL can judge the validity of a contract under their rules. Which is what they did in the Cooke case and have done in this case. And in the Harris case for that matter. They then say that if the affected club wishes to take legal action under employment law then it's up to them to do so. What the RFL won't ever do is take a view on the legal status of a contract one way or the other.

[Mild Rover]

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:30 am  

Kosh wrote:

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.

The Cooke case was different. Obviously. Old ground, but he was contracted, but as there was no paper evidence of the length of the contract, he could, arguably, resign and ask for his registration to be cancelled. Where he came a bit of a cropper was in notifying Rovers of his availability prior to getting that cancellation confirmed. Because he was on record in the press as having accepted a new deal for however many years it was, my entirely inexpert view is that Hull could have won a court case. But the risk to reward ratio made it unlikely they'd ever pursue that option - despite statements to the contrary at the time. In that there is a likely similarity, I reckon.

The more obvious precedent is Kopczak (excluding the Keith Mason trial revelations). Whether OK Bulls might have followed that up further, I guess we'll never know.

M@islebugs wrote:

So the RFL are taking a view on the validity of contracts, even where there is a dispute between the parties, and in this case DECIDING, the contract between Carvell and the Bradford club is invalid. I just can't see that.

I'm not sure we're any further forward. The RFL cannot act as arbiter/judge in these matters and i'm still unsure what the point of registration is, and specifically what the 'holding' of registration means if the title can be transferred without a party'e agreement.

I think it is more a case that contract law has to take precedence over their own rules. If they do anything that might be viewed as a restraint of trade (over and above the registration system itself, at least), they could end up in hot water themselves. If there's doubt, it's safer to let the player move. Then any issues can be dealt with retrospectively. They're trying to stay out of it, rather than act as judge - on the contract side of it, at least. If the Bulls were to claim a breach of the registration rules, that'd be the RFL's remit. Likely a fairly pyrrhic victory though, even if they found in the Bull's favour.

[Bulliac]

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:09 am  

vbfg wrote:

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.

Oh, so he freely avails himself of the BENEFITS of the contract but doesn't want to do the contracted work and you think it's OK? I'm glad you never worked with me...

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:21 am  

I'm struggling to see what the Bulls owners hope to achieve by legal action.

No court is going to order Carvell to stay with the Bulls and I doubt that the Bulls want that anyway. Would Cummins or his team mates want him back? What sort of attitude would he have if he did return? Would he give 100%?

Any court ruling will not be binding on the RFL unless the Bulls sue the RFL as well as Carvell. Would that be wise given that (officially at least) there has not yet been any ruling on a points deduction following the administration?

Any damages they may recover are going to be limited to his wages and other benefits received so are going to be very modest in amount.

The Bulls don't have a claim against Hull unless they have evidence that Hull approached Carvell (as opposed to the other way round).

This is all going to end in very expensive tears. As Cummins said yesterday, time to move on.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:22 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

The Cooke case was different. Obviously. Old ground, but he was contracted, but as there was no paper evidence of the length of the contract, he could, arguably, resign and ask for his registration to be cancelled. Where he came a bit of a cropper was in notifying Rovers of his availability prior to getting that cancellation confirmed. Because he was on record in the press as having accepted a new deal for however many years it was, my entirely inexpert view is that Hull could have won a court case. But the risk to reward ratio made it unlikely they'd ever pursue that option - despite statements to the contrary at the time. In that there is a likely similarity, I reckon.

The more obvious precedent is Kopczak (excluding the Keith Mason trial revelations). Whether OK Bulls might have followed that up further, I guess we'll never know.

I think it is more a case that contract law has to take precedence over their own rules. If they do anything that might be viewed as a restraint of trade (over and above the registration system itself, at least), they could end up in hot water themselves. If there's doubt, it's safer to let the player move. Then any issues can be dealt with retrospectively. They're trying to stay out of it, rather than act as judge - on the contract side of it, at least. If the Bulls were to claim a breach of the registration rules, that'd be the RFL's remit. Likely a fairly pyrrhic victory though, even if they found in the Bull's favour.

That makes more sense and explains Hull stating that Clarke had informed them about Carvell's availability. This places them out of harms way (unlike in the Kopczak case).

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:24 am  

Diogenes wrote:

I'm struggling to see what the Bulls owners hope to achieve by legal action.

No court is going to order Carvell to stay with the Bulls and I doubt that the Bulls want that anyway. Would Cummins or his team mates want him back? What sort of attitude would he have if he did return? Would he give 100%?

Any court ruling will not be binding on the RFL unless the Bulls sue the RFL as well as Carvell. Would that be wise given that (officially at least) there has not yet been any ruling on a points deduction following the administration?

Any damages they may recover are going to be limited to his wages and other benefits received so are going to be very modest in amount.

The Bulls don't have a claim against Hull unless they have evidence that Hull approached Carvell (as opposed to the other way round).

This is all going to end in very expensive tears. As Cummins said yesterday, time to move on.

This isn't about what's already happened. This is about laying down a marker.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:52 am  

Gerrum on side ref wrote:

What a sick comment to make, regardless of the manner of his departure

What a shock. Mock outrage from a "do gooder" trying to moralise.

Hardly sick. Just hope he gets screwed over like he screwed us over - karma.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:00 pm  

Hiya guys!

I've read the last 10 pages of this and I've read everything from common sense, and general knowledge, to just downright bizzare comments.

Anybody slating the guy, I think needs to put theirselves in his position. He's come to the club as a grand finalist, and within weeks he's working with a depleted squad, threat of non-payment and his contract being passed from pillar to post (forgive me if this isn't entirely correct)

To call the guy for leaving is unfair, though I understand as Bradford fans it must be gutting. I think the poeple who are angry should be venting their frustrations at the previous owner, not at Carvell who is basically having to make these choices for the good of his family, as the situation was completely out of his control at the top level.

I do feel for you guys but the roots of this issue still lie with the previous owners, culminating in your marquee signing leaving before he's played a game.

People wishing he gets a season long injury need to take a look at theirselves, though I wuld imagine they are the type to see nothing wrong.

The best Bradford can hope for is a horough investigation into the negotiations, and compensation if there has been anything done untoward ...and I'm sure retribution for Hull would make a lot feel instantly better.

Ultimately, the guy was offered a contract and has found out after signing that his employer is struggling financially. He has therefore changed employer for his own financial stability.

It's a shame, but how many of you would honestly do any different?

And if he didn't want to be there, put a guy at prop who does - you'll reap far greater benefits.

All the best guys, see you Sunday.

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

DAVE@CAS1990 wrote:

I've read the last 10 pages of this...

I started reading the last few pages but when I came to ''Well I hope he gets a career ending injury on Friday'' I kind of stopped.