Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:32 am  

Standee wrote:

It's just noise from Bradford, neither Carvell nor FC have any case to answer.

Thinking the same thing. Maybe trying to save face with the fans a bit.

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:56 am  

Can see the bulls fans now, sat in court waving their sponge fingers in disgust haha

More chance of that happening than fc or carvell being there

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:23 pm  

From Simon Clark of the BBC (@simonhul) on Twitter:

Just spoken to Bradford who confirm threatened legal action is against Gareth Carvell not RFL or Hull FC

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

Punos wrote:

Oh great dipstick Deslawson is back on not sure I can stand all the intelligent posts we will get now.

HDM must be slow today

Use the ignore button (foe).

I do and i can't see any of his posts

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:02 pm  

Diogenes wrote:

From Simon Clark of the BBC (@simonhul) on Twitter:

Just spoken to Bradford who confirm threatened legal action is against Gareth Carvell not RFL or Hull FC

I don't know if he owes them anything legally, but morally you would think he owed them something as they have paid him for months with zero return. I personally think he owes them compensation but whether the case is strong enough for Bradford to risk losing after paying legal fees is another thing altogether

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:15 pm  

number 6 wrote:

Can see the bulls fans now, sat in court waving their sponge fingers in disgust haha

More chance of that happening than fc or carvell being there

they only wave fingers when bloke on mike tells them and cant see the judge coming out and saying wave your finger in air

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:15 pm  

Willa wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

I don't know if he owes them anything legally, but morally you would think he owed them something as they have paid him for months with zero return. I personally think he owes them compensation but whether the case is strong enough for Bradford to risk losing after paying legal fees is another thing altogether

Zero return? I presume he turned up for training, attended club and community events etc, what more could he do in the off-season?

The company that "paid him for months" is now in administration. Bradford Bulls is just a name, not a legal entity.

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

Diogenes wrote:

Zero return? I presume he turned up for training, attended club and community events etc, what more could he do in the off-season?

The company that "paid him for months" is now in administration. Bradford Bulls is just a name, not a legal entity.

His twitter account includes a photo of some of the players at training so would assume he was there!

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:26 pm  

Diogenes wrote:

Zero return? I presume he turned up for training, attended club and community events etc, what more could he do in the off-season?

The company that "paid him for months" is now in administration. Bradford Bulls is just a name, not a legal entity.

He put in a stirling performance in the pre season trial against Hull FC, his only game in a Bulls shirt

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:05 pm  

This is how the Craig Kopczak saga started....

In a statement, Shuttleworth (his agent) said: 'Craig was notified by the joint administrators by letter dated September 3, 2012 that his playing contract had transferred with effect from August 31, 2012 to OK Bulls Ltd.
'He then served notice on the administrators that he objects to the transfer of his employment under the relevant TUPE legislation.
'The net effect of having served the notice is that he is deemed to have resigned with effect from August 31, 2012 and his employment with the club is automatically terminated.'