Not at all.

As far as I am aware, both statements were factually correct.

The contract WAS registered with the RFL. The RFL apparently said they would not stand in the way of Hull FC seeking to regsiter him, since it was a contractual dispute between two clubs. So we must now assume that Hull FC have since registered a contract, as he is named in their squad.

The club clearly believes the player continues to be subject to his contract with the Bulls, and so by implication is in breach of contract. That will be a legal issue between both clubs and the player, to be resolved. The club will assuredly be seeking compensation in some form, so is hardly going to come out and say "win some, lose some, he's fekked off so that's just tough on us", is it?

Nice try sunshine, but another bad fail.

Wrong. RFL have a better grasp of TUPE than RHP.

Poor Robbie ! Will he be the latest Bulls director blindly supported by Adeybull only to later be bagged by him?

Adeybull feel free to pull my post apart sentence by sentence and offer paragraphs of your usual guff.

Meanwhile We can add Robbie's Carvell statement to the list including his assertions on paying players etc.

If your argument can be pulled apart, it doesn't sound very strong

The glee displayed by some folk that support other clubs does them absolutely no credit at all.

Pray enlighten us as to what actions Carvell took when notified of the intended TUPE? And when?

Pray enlighten us of any reasons - fact, not guess or hearsay - as to why TUPE would not have applied to the transfer?

And, since the RFL apparently stated that the issue is a contractual one between the clubs, they were obviously not seeking to comment on the merits or otherwise of the TUPE. Apart from, maybe, acknowledging that Carvell COULD still be contracted to the Bulls (and thereby implicitly agreeing with RHP), since if they believed he was NOT, they would surely have said so? Remember of course that registering a player is separate to any contractual relationship - as we all saw over the Iestyn debacle.

OK, post pulled apart as requested. Is there any other waknerage you'd like to spout that we can pull apart?

Sorry though, any response from me will have to wait a while now - I'm off to do some useful work with the supporters' trust. Actions vs words, and all that.

Gunna b interesting on Friday night.
Now there will be 5 (YES 5!!!!) former bulls players playing for Hull or Catalans

Leon Pryce
Olivier Elima
Ian Henderson
Garreth Carvell
Elliott Whitehead

I was planning on getting 'Carvell 10' on the back of my shirt

Now im glad I havent

Gareth Carvell is clearly a likeable chap.
He has now screwed over and royally messed about 2 SL clubs to suit his own ends.

This is a very good point. In the future which club would possibly want to employ such a loyal and faithful coach?

We need players who are committed and loyal to their teammates in such a crucial year of relegation. Carvell has form for wriggling out of contracts, Hull are welcome to him. They haven't had a lot of recent luck with signings from us (Crookes) or when they have gazumped us (Seymour) so hopefully we'll see that trend continue!

Looks like we're actively seeking a replacement or two so hopefully we might see a recruit possible from down under in the not too distant future.

The fact that the RFL have registered him means nothing. You only have to go as far back as the Iestyn debacle to realise it is far from over and again it was originally OK'ed by the RFL.

I am genuinely and utterly confused by all this. Walking out I get, but I don't understand how his registration can be swapped to a different club without our say so.

If you can simply walk away and sign with another club what are transfer fees for? Someone explain it to me in simple terms please.

www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/art ... -statement

www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/art ... -statement

See statement from club on website. Sorry dont know how post link. Legal action?

Looks like this could get messy

What a poorly written statement and yet another shambolic affair.

You cant walk out - you still have your car. We really have turned into the Newcastle of Rugby League.

Hmmm not sure I'd agree with that. I can't see too much wrong with the statement but perhaps that's just me.

This is like a bad soap opera. Unreal. But glad in some ways that the club not just rolling over and getting shafted like always. Good to see them sticking up for what's right.

This statement admits for the first time that he didn't agree to transfer his contract. Is there any basis on which that refusal can in turn be refused?

TBH, this should have been the club's stance for Kopczak. A similar stance should also have been taken regarding Orford, Whitehead and Bateman. For far to long we've been a soft touch when it comes to enforcing contracts.

If another club tried the player fiddling we've had to endure with a Leeds or Wigan player for example, they'd get served so fast they'd think Usain Bolt delivered them.

I particularly like the comment about "where will we be if we don't honour contracts?"

Admin, that's where you will be. But you knew that already, didn't you?

No hint of irony at all.

How long he was receiving wages and how many sponsored cars he has have bugger all to do with anything. They're free to put what they want in there I guess but it seems pretty churlish to be talking about that. They're just not relevant. Either he has a valid contract or he doesn't. How good the sex was before you got dumped is not what you put in your hastily written refusal to accept that she can take the dog.

I don't quite see it like that. The tone of our press releases is more chatty and personal of late. That will appeal to the core audience far more than sterile perfectly worded statements.

Keep in mind, that you may well be a sophisticated and intelligent gent but a cursory glance at Facebook suggests that isn't the Bulls demographic.

I'm actually pretty sure Bradford statement about the company change not changing employment conditions is actually incorrect but that will come out in the wash. If any of his conditions changes, like working conditions or wages it's grounds for constructive dismissal and he would be free of his contract if he chooses it. The only issue is if he has taken wages while in understanding of those changes for a prolonged period which demonstrates agreement to these conditions (my understanding).

Most Bradford can get is lost of earnings which can't be demonstrated here in my opinion.

In short, reckon Bradford will make some noise about it, then employment solicitors will get involved, they try to claim loss of earnings, Carvel will decline and then it will get dropped. Happens all time, it's almost templated.

TUPE is not as cut and dry and many on here make out. It's basically a bit of legislation to bridge between UK law and EU law and as such can have more than a few twisty turny bits. Now, that's basically an over simplification of the situation but really, it's meant to be protection for employees when company ownership changes hands, it's not meant for getting out of contracts that you don't want to fulfil.