Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:35 pm  

DAVE@CAS1990 wrote:

to be honest I reckon that's a kid - no adult would say things like that, surely to Christ.

Sadly, he's not a kid. He just appears to be someone who has more negatives to offer than positives and occasionally comes out with comments like that which do himself no credit and perhaps more importantly brings the majority of Bulls fans into disrepute.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:40 pm  

true enough, comments like that just get a "shake head, move on" reaction. I don't honestly think the other Xthousand bulls fans wish injury upon anyone. How proud he must be to be in such a tiny minority...

Anyway, hope there's a bumper show-up on Sunday, tough game to call

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:42 pm  

Highlander wrote:

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...

Bye - that made me laugh. Especially the Leeds comparison bit.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:46 pm  

Shall we stay on topic? We know from experience that any Mystic Eddie versus the world slanging match generally result in threads getting locked and bans being issued.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:51 pm  

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.

Its either a win-win or lose-lose situation.
If either Carvell/the rfl/hull fc back down the Bulls regain some "ground" if however they lose it could become open season for any player wanting away.
They simply cannot not do anything, this was always likely and without knowing all the facts i still think the player will win in this situation.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:55 pm  

Diogenes wrote:

It seems like a very expensive way to make a point when there are better things to spend the money on.

It is possible that there is a contract with the outfit we are using for HR advice that includes the cost of going to court, if you look at the testaments on their websites it looks like they sell that sort of a deal. If something arises you ask their advice and if you follow it to the letter then theres usually legal aid to a value built in to fight your side of it. Which is why the action is against the employee, Carvell, not Hull or the RFL.

This must impact on the value of assets purchased from the administrator. If any employee can refuse to be tuped on the same t and cs as before and so effectively any other competitor can cherry pick, then the only sensible thing to do is buy nothing from the administrator other than the trading name or style, and cherry pick the employees yourself.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:00 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

It is possible that there is a contract with the outfit we are using for HR advice that includes the cost of going to court, if you look at the testaments on their websites it looks like they sell that sort of a deal. If something arises you ask their advice and if you follow it to the letter then theres usually legal aid to a value built in to fight your side of it. Which is why the action is against the employee, Carvell, not Hull or the RFL.

This must impact on the value of assets purchased from the administrator. If any employee can refuse to be tuped on the same t and cs as before and so effectively any other competitor can cherry pick, then the only sensible thing to do is buy nothing from the administrator other than the trading name or style, and cherry pick the employees yourself.

Can't see this being the case, OK from the Bulls POV they may see Carvell as being in the wrong but equally if that is the case so are Hull for approaching a contracted player and the RFL for sanctioning the deal.
Seems to me that if the Bulls are right, then all three are in the wrong and not just Carvell??

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:17 pm  

kinleycat wrote:

Can't see this being the case, OK from the Bulls POV they may see Carvell as being in the wrong but equally if that is the case so are Hull for approaching a contracted player and the RFL for sanctioning the deal.
Seems to me that if the Bulls are right, then all three are in the wrong and not just Carvell??

By all accounts Carvell's agent approached Hull. The RFL nor Hull will face any action here, it will be Bradford against Carvell. I cannot think that the scenario we have now is in any way better than Gareth just having a quiet chat, along the lines of....
GC: I don't want to play for you anymore
BB: We will let you talk to other clubs so long as we are compensated for wages paid to you during your employment.

It's terribly messy now and sets a dangerous precedent for players looking to get out of their contracts. I'm delighted that we've signed him, disappointed in the circumstances of that signing.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:26 pm  

I'd love to have been at Garreth's wedding.

"Speak now or forever hold their peace"

*silence*

...

"It is by the power vested in me that I now pronounced you husband and wife, you may now kiss the ... oh"

Garreth runs off with the bridesmaid.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:28 pm  

and mr carvell has a couple of big backers behind him to pay the legal fees