Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:31 pm  

roofaldo2 wrote:

Have you paid the taxman this year?

just 1 of the many that made me laugh !!

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:31 pm  

People laughed when the club mentioned the fact that Carvell still had the club sponsored car. However if he was still using it (possibly whilst seeking out future employers) is this not implied acceptance of TUPE situation and therefore change of owner. It seems that the whole thing would have been straight forward had Carvell been informed of the TUPE and he had said "Stuff that I'm off, come and get back all club assets". The players union seem strangely quiet over all this. They look after all their members interests and not just individuals. It can't be in their interest to see players walk out on contracts. If they do it is a short step before clubs start saying "Jeez, I thought you would play better than this. Never mind there's the door".
With regards to the RFL's position don't we have a position now where a player is registered with 2 clubs? If they don't make judgement calls on contract validity couldn't we simply register all of Castleford's team with us before Sunday?

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:47 pm  

hindle xiii wrote:

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.

Where are you off on your honeymoon Gareth?

Thailand. We thought about Spain but the missus doesn't like long plane flights

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:48 pm  

tamargrace wrote:

just 1 of the many that made me laugh !!

Wow, it took you 4 months to get the joke? You are slow, aren't you?

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:22 pm  

roofaldo2 wrote:

Wow, it took you 4 months to get the joke? You are slow, aren't you?

When I was a small boy it took me about 4 years to work out why my dog soft toy was called "Deefah".

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:29 pm  

7th of March should be a tasty affair anyway. As long as he's not been sidelined through a career ending injury as some douchebag on here is hoping for.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:36 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??

Correct, those are the implications of my comment IF they succeed against Carvell. if the bulls win and Carvell should have accepted the TUPE with the same terms then the RFL have to accept the courts decision that he is a Bradford player. the next thing they have to decide is his transfer value as clearly there is no going back. If it is breach of contract then Carvell could be liable for the tranfer fee himself as through his breach Bulls have not been able to negotiate with Hull for it (tho you would have thought that Hull would pay it - BUT it would be a payment to a player so part of the salary cap, AND liable for any one off costs that Bradford have to pay to get a replacement in. No wonder the RFL are staying as far away as possible! Whilst I would not wish an injury upon any player, I do hope that the implications of what he could be liable for weigh a little bit on his playing mind when we play Hull.

To return yet again to a previous comment, we tuped Platt at the inflated salary he was on, if Carvell is correct then we want our money back from Platt.

So it all hinges on legalese, I doubt that Hull would let it become Carvells liability so would sensibly come to a settlement, which I am sure is all we want anyway.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:40 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

Correct, those are the implications of my comment IF they succeed against Carvell. if the bulls win and Carvell should have accepted the TUPE with the same terms then the RFL have to accept the courts decision that he is a Bradford player. the next thing they have to decide is his transfer value as clearly there is no going back. If it is breach of contract then Carvell could be liable for the tranfer fee himself as through his breach Bulls have not been able to negotiate with Hull for it (tho you would have thought that Hull would pay it - BUT it would be a payment to a player so part of the salary cap, AND liable for any one off costs that Bradford have to pay to get a replacement in. No wonder the RFL are staying as far away as possible! Whilst I would not wish an injury upon any player, I do hope that the implications of what he could be liable for weigh a little bit on his playing mind when we play Hull.

To return yet again to a previous comment, we tuped Platt at the inflated salary he was on, if Carvell is correct then we want our money back from Platt.

So it all hinges on legalese, I doubt that Hull would let it become Carvells liability so would sensibly come to a settlement, which I am sure is all we want anyway.

my limited understanding is you are tupe'd over on the same terms and conditions which is platt, you can refuse the transfer and walk away ! which carvell has done !

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:49 pm  

So if Carvell (now "registered" with Hull FC) has not returned the sponsored Bulls car and is still using this car to travel to Hull etc could this be considered a Taken Without Consent situation?

What a mess

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:22 pm  

martinwildbull wrote:

Correct, those are the implications of my comment IF they succeed against Carvell. if the bulls win and Carvell should have accepted the TUPE with the same terms then the RFL have to accept the courts decision that he is a Bradford player. the next thing they have to decide is his transfer value as clearly there is no going back. If it is breach of contract then Carvell could be liable for the tranfer fee himself as through his breach Bulls have not been able to negotiate with Hull for it (tho you would have thought that Hull would pay it - BUT it would be a payment to a player so part of the salary cap, AND liable for any one off costs that Bradford have to pay to get a replacement in. No wonder the RFL are staying as far away as possible! Whilst I would not wish an injury upon any player, I do hope that the implications of what he could be liable for weigh a little bit on his playing mind when we play Hull.

To return yet again to a previous comment, we tuped Platt at the inflated salary he was on, if Carvell is correct then we want our money back from Platt.

So it all hinges on legalese, I doubt that Hull would let it become Carvells liability so would sensibly come to a settlement, which I am sure is all we want anyway.

Not really. Carvell's employment status and his RFL registration are separate issues legally and the RFL can't be bound by the outcome of a court case it was not a party to. If the Bulls want the court to order the RFL to accept that he is registered to Bradford, not Hull, they need to sue the RFL too.