Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:23 pm  

tamargrace wrote:

my limited understanding

modesty becomes the lady

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:45 pm  

Or it could be that the Bulls do not intend to see this through but one of the other interested parties the RFL is talking to may take on ownership of the Bulls. If that required a further TUPE from Bulls 2014 to another new company I can see logic in creating enough of a stir to discourage anyone else from following suit?

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:53 pm  

Without reading most of the last few pages,I think the Bulls are well within their rights to pursue this, I also think this is not Hulls fault.The player and the agent should be pursued.We have lost a very good player but think he certainly needs to learn a few lessons on how to go about things,lost all respect for him now.

Regarding the company car situation,if turns out his insurance on the car finished when he walked out and he gets 3 points on his licence,he could have more points than us in 2 week if we get off to a bad start

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:54 pm  

What will happen if next week the administrator accepts a better offer from the new guy? As all the players have been TUPE'd to BB2014, they can't be un-TUPE'd - that would be ridiculous, and isn't legally possible.

Maybe they could do something like the Bobby Ewing shower scene.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm  

He cant have twoc-ed the sponsors car if it's due to him under the terms of his contract (which the Bulls say is still valid). Similarly, he can't be said to have resigned if he's not handed it back. Can he?

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:53 pm  

Heritage wrote:

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.

How exactly do I bring "the majority of Bulls fans into disrepute?"

My views are mine alone, not a representation of the fans overall.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:55 pm  

Oh I do enjoy a good pantomime, and you guys have never failed to deliver over the last couple of years. I'd say Carvell has taken Legal Advice, which has pointed him in a particular direction, and why he has decided that 'Ull is the better option. And Redhall have apparently received similar advice.

Given previous Bradford Directors' attitude to Contracted players, Iestyn Harries anyone, the outraged knee jerking by the current lot does raise a smile. FA I'm sure will be able to give you Chapter and Verse on TUPE regs, but I'm pretty sure you are not obliged to accept any new contract with the Newco.

And he will no doubt point out that Legal Action tends to be expensive, a point your creditors will have noticed as well........

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:56 pm  

major black wrote:

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 6:59 pm  

Yes we all know that you can refuse be TUPE'd but it has to be done within a certain time and that is the whole crux the matter. You either accept or decline and then try look for other employ. You can't wander the country until you find another employer and the decide to decline. As said previously keeping company assets is seen as implied acceptance.

Re: carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 7:28 pm  

All the cash taken by Gareth since he joined the Bulls has been offered back but not accepted yet so Carvs says on twitter.
Think it would be best for Bulls to cut and run, save on legal costs etc