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.

RFL become a laughing stock, but what changes there!!

The guy has taken a good wage (and a car) for months and given nothing for the team. RFL should have stepped in, made Hull cover that costs and then we all move on.
After all he's ready the play on Friday because of us.

You never see a football manager talking about another teams player! Not releasing statements saying there going to sign in, and just start training and register a player.
Absolute joke!

It's actually nothing to do with Hull FC. From a legal perspective all the RFL have done is allow the signing of a free agent as Carvell has likely issued a constructive dismissal claim. This releases him from his employment, regardless of if there is a dispute of him been in violation of his contract. Something an employment tribunal would decide, but this won't even get near a tribunal session. If they won they would have to show a clear case for lost of earnings, which in very much doubt they can do.

Bradford make a fair comment that this is a major issue with sporting contracts. It's certainly not a "precedent" as they suggest, it's happened a lot of times previously including too us in Cooke. It's a fundamental flaw in sports contracts, they really are not worth the paper they are written on.

All we need now is the Points deduction and we can all feel happy and contented. We can draw a line under it and wait for the next series of bad news articles. Maybe we'll get back to playing Rugby at some time!

Totally agree.....

Isn't the qualifying period for Constructive Dismissal the same as Unfair Dismissal? I.e 2 years? I'd have thought TUPE was more likely but didn't he remain at the club after the deadline?

Could someone answer a question for me as there seems to be an inconsistency in the Bulls Statement, but it may be that I am misunderstanding? The statement seems to acknowledge that GC refuse a TUPE transfer and then continues to argue that the club has not changed. Now I understand the arguements that the club continues as the same sporting entity, but is the key not whom employed GC? That must have been OK Bulls for a TUPE transfer to be required at all?

That all seems to fit to me, but there are some posters, whom I would not always agree with but whose opinions I respect that seem convinced it is not that straightforward. Can anyone explain what I am missing?

As for the sponsor car, that is surely a matter between GC and the sponsor, though I can imagine the sponsor will be none too happy, if he was no longer an employee of Bradford Bulls has GC been driving the car without permission and therefore insurance?

Well I hope he gets a career ending injury on Friday. What a twunt.