bradford bull don't exist in legal terms, it's the Ltd co who trade as bradford bulls who contract with the players, hence the TUPE transfer. Any employee has the right to reject TUPE and walk away from any contractual obligations at the time of thee transfer which is what carvell has done. Good on him I say and KARMA for your club doing the same with radford all those years ago

Haven't you got a city centre civil war to organise?

Something weird is going on here.
I mean the sob story involving being away from his family aside (if that's the case why add 100 miles to your daily commute?) one excuse for this bandied about has been job security. So why go from a two to a one year contract?

Wakner is all he is.

I hope Karma for you failure to poach McNamara off us to coach in your hell hole comes back to bite you on the !

Fuck him he's a prick

Well I won't comment on the legal side of things, there are others better qualified to offer an opinion here. But his character would appear to be one we can live without. Hull are welcome to him, along with his high wages. I'm just looking forward to getting behind the guys who do want to represent our famous club.

It already has, they've got Radford.

ha ha, cue the sob stories.

Bulls are going down the pan and a working man jumps ship to give him a guaranteed wage (at least Hull FC will pay him !)

Run a proper club and players will stay. If you don't they won't. I can't see the problem - properly run clubs don't have these issues.

WHich would explain the massive issues your own club has had over recent years, then.

Yes of course it does. Has no bearing on this current situation though does it.

Can't miss what I guess you never experienced. If his heart wasn't in it you will be better off with a youngster playing and gaining some experience.

Absolutely.

And some old hands on here may remember me getting my 'nads chewed off on these forums when I supported Hull FC and its fans some years ago in the face of all the crap about the goalposts and similar incidents? But I stand by everything I said at the time. DO not judge a club, and its fans, by the actions of a stupid minority.

But it was a response to a guy who was taking the moral high ground now, secure in the knowledge that your club now has a wealthy owner and hopefully one who will not tolerate some of the nonsense in the recent past from some staff and players? A couple of years ago, he would not have been able to say what he did.

So, as with you guys, what happened in the past at Bradford should surely have no bearing on the current situation?

You seem a very sensible chap? You need to come here more often.

What a sick comment to make, regardless of the manner of his departure

If Caisley is not involved the Bulls have probably got a winnable action. The Muppets at Sod Hall are a different matter, in allowing a disputed registration and not telling Hull they could be deducted points for playing an illegible player if they lose the court case to the Bulls, they are saying the employment Laws are making the Players untouchable and any contracts worthless!!

Bulls are leaving the matter in the hands of professionals: elcons.co.uk/ Love it how we suddenly have so many experts on here who know better. You should apply for the top job with Elcon as clearly they know nothing and would appreciate your expertise. I think it is clear to say that there are some very muddied waters surrounding the case but anything written to Carvell will have been written very much with the legal context in mind. Mind you, after Shudds seemingly got off absolutely scot free even after lying to the RFL's investigator, unless we did somehow win the legal case or reach a deal, I don't expect anything much from any other quarter.

Bulls are leaving the matter in the hands of professionals: elcons.co.uk/ Love it how we suddenly have so many experts on here who know better. You should apply for the top job with Elcon as clearly they know nothing and would appreciate your expertise. I think it is clear to say that there are some very muddied waters surrounding the case but anything written to Carvell will have been written very much with the legal context in mind. Mind you, after Shudds seemingly got off absolutely scot free even after lying to the RFL's investigator, unless we did somehow win the legal case or reach a deal, I don't expect anything much from any other quarter.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Bulls are leaving the matter in the hands of professionals: elcons.co.uk/ Love it how we suddenly have so many experts on here who know better. You should apply for the top job with Elcon as clearly they know nothing and would appreciate your expertise. I think it is clear to say that there are some very muddied waters surrounding the case but anything written to Carvell will have been written very much with the legal context in mind. Mind you, after Shudds seemingly got off absolutely scot free even after lying to the RFL's investigator, unless we did somehow win the legal case or reach a deal, I don't expect anything much from any other quarter.'" The point is the club are making the right noises. As for using employment law specialists everyone this side of the river hull knows that ten minutes on Google is enough to pass the cipd exams

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Bulls are leaving the matter in the hands of professionals: elcons.co.uk/ Love it how we suddenly have so many experts on here who know better. You should apply for the top job with Elcon as clearly they know nothing and would appreciate your expertise. I think it is clear to say that there are some very muddied waters surrounding the case but anything written to Carvell will have been written very much with the legal context in mind. Mind you, after Shudds seemingly got off absolutely scot free even after lying to the RFL's investigator, unless we did somehow win the legal case or reach a deal, I don't expect anything much from any other quarter.'" The point is the club are making the right noises. As for using employment law specialists everyone this side of the river hull knows that ten minutes on Google is enough to pass the cipd exams

I think we should let the club deal with the Carvell situation, we, as fans have no control as to the outcome. The man obviously has no loyalty to the club. We should just get behind the players who want to play for the Bulls.

Just setting aside the details of the TUPE vs resignation issue, what is the point of registering a contract with the RFL? I'm not suggesting they've done anything wrong here but Blake Solly made it clear the RFL would be registering Carvell's contract with Hull, almost as if the Bulls contention he was contracted to them was wholly irrelevant.

Could, for instance, Danny Kirmond resign at Wakefield, approach Castleford, seek and obtain a contract to play, and then be registered by the RFL, on the basis that the matters were between Wakefield and Kirmond? This seems odd as we've frequently heard about a club 'holding' a players registration, which suggests a club has to agree to the registration transferring.

I await, all the 'Carvell wasn't getting paid' stuff but that's none of the RFL's business and at this stage is one word against another.

As we discovered with the Paul Cooke fiasco, you can't 'hold' a player's registration without a valid contract. The 'playing registration' is simply the formal registration of a valid contract with the RFL - no contract, no registration.

The RFL are only interested in whether RFL rules have been broken, and if there is no evidence of this they will happily transfer the registration and let the two clubs handle the dispute through the courts if they want to. Their default position is always to do nothing if they can possibly get away with it.

Had doubts from before signing so best he is gone, no one wants a player who isn't 100% committed.

But Cooke's contract had expired, therefore the contract registered with the RFL was clearly invalid. I don't see the parallel. Carvell's contract hasn't expired and only came into force on 1st November.

Even taking into account what you're saying, are you saying the RFL have decided, irrespective of the Bradford clubs assertion, that his contract is invalid? Seems a bold move considering what the club are saying.

Thats what happened with Iestyn. Leeds sent us a letter saying he was registered with them, we had legal advice otherwise, RFL registered his contract with us.

So in this case we are now Leeds. Lets see if we can win this one, to the extent they won theirs...

Cooke's contract had been extended. He hadn't signed the extension but had been taking the improved pay and conditions for a season or so when he walked out. In employment law that would normally constitute acceptance of the contract. See the similarity now?

Carvell claims to have not accepted the TUPE transfer. The latest Bulls statement seems to accept that. Therefore - on the face of it - Carvell's contract was in a similar state to Cooke's. This is why I said some while ago that I wouldn't be surprised to see the RFL sanction the move.

The RFL have seen Carvell's contract. They have almost certainly been provided with evidence of his TUPE refusal by Carvell or his agent. Clearly they feel that Carvell was a free agent and has since signed a legitimate contract with Hull FC - and all within RFL rules. Time will tell if they're right or not.