Wow, this is messy, TUPE is usually underpinned by case law, hence establishment of legal precedents, and the only true winners being the legal firms & their fees. In Carvell's case a couple of key points to consider are that:

Objecting to a transfer means:

1. Their employment ends on the date of the transfer, so they do not need to work out their notice period and are free to go to work elsewhere immediately.

2. They may be released from restrictive covenants in their contract. There has been a High Court case where the new employer could not enforce restrictive covenants against an employee whose employment did not transfer over to it

Hence, so long has he clearly stated an objection to the transfer (no reason is required) then point 1 is valid, and there's scope within point 2 to prevent the rentention of his registration by Bradford (noting legal precedent set albeit this could be countered), but all this will need legal expertise, arguement and cost to sort out.

I've been on this Bulls board long enough to know the majority yourself included are good, honest folk with a real passion for their club. Unfortunately this kind of thing will stir emotion and reaction to silly irrelevant comments so I totally understand your response.

Lets hope this doesn't drag on too long and we can all get back to talking about Rugby League.

You can say that again






...and your problem is...?




Maybe not so much cost. According to the website of the company the Bulls have dealing with it, provided the Bulls follow their advice then all costs are covered.

So the RFL are taking a view on the validity of contracts, even where there is a dispute between the parties, and in this case DECIDING, the contract between Carvell and the Bradford club is invalid. I just can't see that.

I'm not sure we're any further forward. The RFL cannot act as arbiter/judge in these matters and i'm still unsure what the point of registration is, and specifically what the 'holding' of registration means if the title can be transferred without a party'e agreement.

The RFL can judge the validity of a contract [iunder their rules[/i. Which is what they did in the Cooke case and have done in this case. And in the Harris case for that matter. They then say that if the affected club wishes to take legal action under employment law then it's up to them to do so. What the RFL won't ever do is take a view on the [ilegal[/i status of a contract one way or the other.

The Cooke case was different. Obviously. Old ground, but he was contracted, but as there was no paper evidence of the length of the contract, he could, arguably, resign and ask for his registration to be cancelled. Where he came a bit of a cropper was in notifying Rovers of his availability prior to getting that cancellation confirmed. Because he was on record in the press as having accepted a new deal for however many years it was, my [uentirely inexpert[/u view is that Hull [icould [/ihave won a court case. But the risk to reward ratio made it unlikely they'd ever pursue that option - despite statements to the contrary at the time. In that there is a likely similarity, I reckon.

The more obvious precedent is Kopczak (excluding the Keith Mason trial revelations). Whether OK Bulls might have followed that up further, I guess we'll never know.



I think it is more a case that contract law has to take precedence over their own rules. If they do anything that might be viewed as a restraint of trade (over and above the registration system itself, at least), they could end up in hot water themselves. If there's doubt, it's safer to let the player move. Then any issues can be dealt with retrospectively. They're trying to stay out of it, rather than act as judge - on the contract side of it, at least. If the Bulls were to claim a breach of the registration rules, that'd be the RFL's remit. Likely a fairly pyrrhic victory though, even if they found in the Bull's favour.

Oh, so he freely avails himself of the BENEFITS of the contract but doesn't want to do the contracted work and you think it's OK? I'm glad you never worked with me...

I'm struggling to see what the Bulls owners hope to achieve by legal action.

No court is going to order Carvell to stay with the Bulls and I doubt that the Bulls want that anyway. Would Cummins or his team mates want him back? What sort of attitude would he have if he did return? Would he give 100%?

Any court ruling will not be binding on the RFL unless the Bulls sue the RFL as well as Carvell. Would that be wise given that (officially at least) there has not yet been any ruling on a points deduction following the administration?

Any damages they may recover are going to be limited to his wages and other benefits received so are going to be very modest in amount.

The Bulls don't have a claim against Hull unless they have evidence that Hull approached Carvell (as opposed to the other way round).

This is all going to end in very expensive tears. As Cummins said yesterday, time to move on.

That makes more sense and explains Hull stating that Clarke had informed them about Carvell's availability. This places them out of harms way (unlike in the Kopczak case).

This isn't about what's already happened. This is about laying down a marker.

What a shock. Mock outrage from a "do gooder" trying to moralise.

Hardly sick. Just hope he gets screwed over like he screwed us over - karma.

Hiya guys!

I've read the last 10 pages of this and I've read everything from common sense, and general knowledge, to just downright bizzare comments.

Anybody slating the guy, I think needs to put theirselves in his position. He's come to the club as a grand finalist, and within weeks he's working with a depleted squad, threat of non-payment and his contract being passed from pillar to post (forgive me if this isn't entirely correct)

To call the guy for leaving is unfair, though I understand as Bradford fans it must be gutting. I think the poeple who are angry should be venting their frustrations at the previous owner, not at Carvell who is basically having to make these choices for the good of his family, as the situation was completely out of his control at the top level.

I do feel for you guys but the roots of this issue still lie with the previous owners, culminating in your marquee signing leaving before he's played a game.

People wishing he gets a season long injury need to take a look at theirselves, though I wuld imagine they are the type to see nothing wrong.

The best Bradford can hope for is a horough investigation into the negotiations, and compensation if there has been anything done untoward ...and I'm sure retribution for Hull would make a lot feel instantly better.

Ultimately, the guy was offered a contract and has found out after signing that his employer is struggling financially. He has therefore changed employer for his own financial stability.

It's a shame, but how many of you would honestly do any different?

And if he didn't want to be there, put a guy at prop who does - you'll reap far greater benefits.

All the best guys, see you Sunday.

I started reading the last few pages but when I came to ''Well I hope he gets a career ending injury on Friday'' I kind of stopped.

to be honest I reckon that's a kid - no adult would say things like that, surely to Christ.

It seems like a very expensive way to make a point when there are better things to spend the money on.

I wondered where I'd seen that shirt in your avatar before.

BTW I'd like to make an indecent proposal. How about I offer you a weeks worth of snouts and scratchcards for a night with your bird? Has she still got the pot on her wrist (don't worry that hasn't got any bearing on the offer)?

Is this twenty questions? Because you have another 19.

Hello Shirley

I don't think Jesus comes on here.

Thanks

Keith

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

worst thing Hull fans can do is respond to this drivel. A lot of people are letting theirselves down here.

Shirley don't be so hard on yourself. A lot of people are seeking salvation it's just this is maybe not the best place to do it.

...and in other news heavy rain fall is expected in the south west.

You won't see this or the post you responded to then.

<waves two fingers>

Sadly, he's not a kid. He just appears to be someone who has more negatives to offer than positives and occasionally comes out with comments like that which do himself no credit and perhaps more importantly brings the majority of Bulls fans into disrepute.

true enough, comments like that just get a "shake head, move on" reaction. I don't honestly think the other Xthousand bulls fans wish injury upon anyone. How proud he must be to be in such a tiny minority...

Anyway, hope there's a bumper show-up on Sunday, tough game to call