I know some are quick to jump on the back of Carbell. But he signed last year on the promise we wouldn't go our financial issues were behind us And was probably sold a dream. We went into admin again before thevsadom had started, already been asked to take a 10% pay cut. People go on about him messing the in about but at the end of te day we've gone the same
To him.

How would you feel if you left your job, went to a new company which ended up with financial issues, then been asked to take a 10% pay cut, loyalty works both ways.

Earlier posters said 20% pay cut. You say 10%. Yet nobody but nobody has backed these statements with evidence. Perhaps some believe that if they repeat something often enough it must be true.
The simple fact is that if any pay cut from the transferred contract every single player would have valid claims let alone be eligible to move.
Has anyone ,Carvell included, actually refused to transfer? All the club's statements suggest not.

He hasn't messed Bradford about, if anything it's the other way around.

He was the one getting aggressive.

I don't blame Carvell at all in this, especially if he has not been paid.

He has been paid.

Bull Northern I meant earlier when the squad were asked to take a 10% cut as a group which they declined. I agree with the above poster.

We're fans of the team. Carvell is not. He is a professional who has a family to raise: that comes first and foremost. After been lead on once by us he probably doesn't want to risk the chance of the club going under again and not been able to provide for his family. We need to rebuild our reputation. At the moment players don't trust us to sign fr us without getting in the financial poop.

I would bare no grudge If he left.

So he has signed for Hull then!
Sorry, couldn't resist.

If perchance he has not been paid, it will only be the January payroll, due IIRC last Wednesday. At a rough guess, given administrators were about to be appointed, it is quite possible none of the players were paid by OKB. I suspect that the directors could have been legally precluded from paying anyone at that time. If that was the case, then I would assume all players who did not object to the TUPE when the situation was put to them (I suspect was just before the appointment) will have been paid by BB2014 ASAP after the prepack transfer. If this was not the case, surely by now we would have heard of it?

Of course, if a player elected NOT to be TUPEd across at the time, then he would not become an employee of BB2014, and so would need to look to the administrator of OKB, and the Insolvency Fund, for his January salary.

Just speculating, as I have not details at all of what actually hgappened. And if anyone can improve on that with better information please do so. But it might just be an explanation for why he has allegedly been saying he has not been paid? And, if so, he will have brought it on himself by electing not to be TUPEd? And a lesson to anyone jumping to conclusions based on incomplete information?

I too would bear no grudge and I agree a professional player has to look after his family.All the rumours ,gossip and character assaninations must unsettle any player.
I did think you were alleging that a 10% pay cut was being proposed or implemented. On another thread someone asserted that a 20% cut was a fact and I wrongly assumed you were posting in the same vein. So I apologise.
However just 2 points to bear in mind:
1. I recall that it was not the club who raised the possibility of a pay cut some months ago but some staff understandably trying to save their jobs.
2. Regarding the inability to attract players, it's certainly probably true "at the moment" but our off season recruitment showed that our coach was able to recruit decent players.

My hope is that Mark Moore and the rest of the Board have been able to allay some of the doubts at the meeting with players which was mentioned earlier this week.
Finally it's a week since TUPE came into effect. Only the club and the individual players know who has refused to transfer across to the new company. I doubt that any refusal made after this weekend would be accepted as valid.
So after this weekend it should be clear whether the current squad(minus Carvell) is intact

Just so you know, when a company is re-employing more than 20 employees via TUPE, the employees are entitled to up to 90 days consultation period

Just so you know, you are wrong.

TUPE alison protects the rights of employees NOT wishing to be contracted to a new owner.

This is to prevent "economic slavery", i.e. the retention of workers by preventing them earning livings elsewhere.

I don't know who Alison is.

How melodramatic.

Its actually just to give the employee the option not to be transferred. For any reason he sees fit. As has already been explained at length, by people who DO know things, he simply declines the TUPE transfer, on or before the transfer takes place, and is simply treated as having resigned.

Of course, that would mean, in an insolvency situation, any employment claims he might have will be against the old company.

Might also be worth mentioning that the TUPE requirements are relaxed somewhat where the transferring business is insolvent. This to encourage transferee businesses to take on (more) staff from the former. Picked this up from a major legal firm's website (Pinsent Masons) since far better summarised that I could attempt:

[i=#400040Finally, TUPE is relaxed to protect incoming employers where the exiting employer is insolvent. The liability for redundancy, notice and some other payments to employees will not transfer to the incoming employer. Also, if it is agreed with the trade union or employee representatives, terms and conditions of employment can be changed (without an ETO) if the change is designed to save a failing business. The idea is that companies will be more inclined to "rescue" insolvent businesses, thereby safeguarding employment, where the inherited liabilities are not so onerous.[/i

Of course, that provides more reasons for employees not to avail themselves of the TUPE, depending on if the new employer takes advantage of any or all of those relaxations.

Really

"NOTE: If you decide to dismiss and offer re-engagement on the new terms to 20 or more employees then there is a legal obligation for you to collectively consult with any recognised trade unions or workforce representatives. The penalty for failing to collectively consult could be a Protective Award for all affected employees up to a maximum of 90 days pay"

Taken from [url=http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/8/6/Varying-a-contract-of-employment-accessible-version.pdfHERE[/url

Nope. You are still wrong.

Edited

And hoist by your own petard.

Funnily enough, I was already familiar with that rule you quoted.

As you can clearly see from the wording, it refers to the PENALTY for failure to properly consult. NOT the notice period for consultation.

There is no defined period for consultation in the legislation.

Just so you know.

There is and you know there is

Really?

I guess one of our top legal firms must have got it wrong then, when on the same website I referred to above, it stated:

[i[uWhat do you need to do to comply with TUPE?
[/u
(1) Outgoing employer must inform and consult with staff

Employers involved in a business transfer must inform appropriate representatives of the affected employees of the transfer and any measures proposed, and must consult on any proposed measures. Certain specified information must be provided to the representatives long enough before the transfer to enable the outgoing employer to consult with them about it.

If there are any changes or proposals for changes following the transfer, these "measures" will have to be discussed with the representatives of the affected employees The incoming employer is required to provide the outgoing employer with information on proposed measures to allow the outgoing employer to comply with its duty to inform and consult. [size=150[uThere is no set timetable for consultation[/u[/size, but the larger the transaction and the more staff affected, the longer the timetable will need to be.

If there is a failure to inform and consult, a complaint can be made to the Employment Tribunal. If successful, the Tribunal can award whatever compensation it considers just and equitable having regard to the seriousness of the employer's failure up to a maximum of 13 weeks' pay per affected employee. Information and consultation failures can result in joint and several liability between the outgoing and incoming employers, although the contract governing the transfer can cater for apportionment of liability here.[/i

You are aware of the TUPE changes implemented on 31/01/14 aren't you

and on that note I will bid you goodnight

You are wrong and Adey is right.
Simply look at Regulation 4 and the various clauses. I suspect that your newspaper of choice may have a link but if not try the website for HM Court and Tribunal service.
It is somewhat sad that a forum devoted to the greatest game should become a discussion board for obscure legal wranglings. But I suppose I should plead guilty m'lud.

For the early morning pink one, yes actually I am aware of the substance of the intended changes. None of them have any bearing on this question.

cya.

I am no expert but the ACAS site showing the rules applicable from 31/1/2014 maybe of interest to you TUPE experts.

It means nothing to me but the second example looks to me where the battle ground is.