Re: gareth carvell : Sun Feb 09, 2014 1:47 pm  

Gale is an interesting one that has taken some time to get up a head of steam but he might want to come to Hull he did when we offered a transfer fee for him before we signed Rankin, but ironically Bradford turned us down although they were being kept going by RL funds, something that I would expect proved pretty ironic as far as our administration are concerned.

All I know about Gale is that last Wednesday two West Riding based Journalists who are well respected (or disrespected depending your views) told me that we had gone back for him.

Re: gareth carvell : Sun Feb 09, 2014 2:06 pm  

makes you wonder wether theres out in the Radford not happy with miller rumour.

Re: gareth carvell : Sun Feb 09, 2014 2:08 pm  

IF Hulls did come in for Gale I would presume we would definitely be a due a fee for him.
On the T&A website a sports lawyer said every player or employee has the right to refuse to be Tupe'd to the new company. However they must do it by a certain time period. I think this is what the argument with Carvell is about. There's also the players registration issue as well which is what I THINK Hudds got into trouble for (although this was only because of the Keith Mason legal case as the RFL investigation didn't find anything)

Re: gareth carvell : Sun Feb 09, 2014 2:50 pm  

WormInHand wrote:

His choice or no choice?

his choice, by a distance

Re: gareth carvell : Sun Feb 09, 2014 2:51 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

IF Hulls did come in for Gale I would presume we would definitely be a due a fee for him.
On the T&A website a sports lawyer said every player or employee has the right to refuse to be Tupe'd to the new company. However they must do it by a certain time period. I think this is what the argument with Carvell is about. There's also the players registration issue as well which is what I THINK Hudds got into trouble for (although this was only because of the Keith Mason legal case as the RFL investigation didn't find anything)

Why would a Sports lawyer comment on employment law?

Re: gareth carvell : Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:05 pm  

Standee wrote: Why would a Sports lawyer comment on employment law? http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _interest/ He will have more of an idea of how this will work than all posters on here. (unless any are lawyers ) You don't think a sports lawyer will have an understanding of emoyment law? It will overlap.

Standee wrote: Why would a Sports lawyer comment on employment law? http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _interest/ He will have more of an idea of how this will work than all posters on here. (unless any are lawyers ) You don't think a sports lawyer will have an understanding of emoyment law? It will overlap.

Re: gareth carvell : Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:10 pm  

The RFL sided with Hull's argument that Paul Cooke had accepted the terms of his contract by training & playing for them. Hasn't Carvell has been training & playing pre-season games for Bradford?

Re: gareth carvell : Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:13 pm  

Wildmoose wrote:

The RFL sided with Hull's argument that Paul Cooke had accepted the terms of his contract by training & playing for them. Hasn't Carvell has been training & playing pre-season games for Bradford?

You're missing out pay. Cooke had accepted the contract by accepting a wage, the rumours are Carvell hasn't been getting paid.

Re: gareth carvell : Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:20 pm  

Sheldon wrote:

Wildmoose wrote:

The RFL sided with Hull's argument that Paul Cooke had accepted the terms of his contract by training & playing for them. Hasn't Carvell has been training & playing pre-season games for Bradford?

You're missing out pay. Cooke had accepted the contract by accepting a wage, the rumours are Carvell hasn't been getting paid.

That would make a big difference admittedly, still only a rumour though?

I'm wondering if the hold up is the players Hull are trying to move on? They're in a very strong negotiating position.

Re: gareth carvell : Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:57 pm  

Wildmoose wrote:

The RFL sided with Hull's argument that Paul Cooke had accepted the terms of his contract by training & playing for them. Hasn't Carvell has been training & playing pre-season games for Bradford?

Not since administration/TUPE/resale on Friday 31st January.

There should be "a reasonable time period" before a TUPE takeover, for employees to consider whether to accept the new regime.
In this case administration to takeover happened at the same time, so players should have had a couple of weeks notice of the takeover, which I very much doubt.