Quote ="Bull Mania"Bulls statement. Looks like this could get messy... www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/art ... -statement Hope we're more certain of this than the Harris farce haha!'" If Bradford did anything at all to change his agreed working conditions especially his wage it's grounds for constructive dismissal. 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.

Quote ="Bull Mania"Bulls statement. Looks like this could get messy... www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/art ... -statement Hope we're more certain of this than the Harris farce haha!'" If Bradford did anything at all to change his agreed working conditions especially his wage it's grounds for constructive dismissal. 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.

Quote ="Bull Mania"Bulls statement. Looks like this could get messy... www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/art ... -statement Hope we're more certain of this than the Harris farce haha!'" Doesn't surprise me that Bulls have issued this statement, we did simlar when Cooke went to Rovers but nothing happened. The fact that the statement reads that a letter was sent to Carvell last week means it's more than likely that his or FC's lawyers have looked at it and decided there are no grounds to hold him to his contract with OK Bulls Ltd. Without the club going into receivership and ownership changing hands Bulls might have had a case but under the circumstances i think not. Although the RFL had stated that it was a matter between the clubs I doubt they would have registerd Carvell if they thought there was a realistic cjance of legal recourse. As Franny Cummins stated early today "time to move on"......

Quote ="Bull Mania"Bulls statement. Looks like this could get messy... www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/news/art ... -statement Hope we're more certain of this than the Harris farce haha!'" Doesn't surprise me that Bulls have issued this statement, we did simlar when Cooke went to Rovers but nothing happened. The fact that the statement reads that a letter was sent to Carvell last week means it's more than likely that his or FC's lawyers have looked at it and decided there are no grounds to hold him to his contract with OK Bulls Ltd. Without the club going into receivership and ownership changing hands Bulls might have had a case but under the circumstances i think not. Although the RFL had stated that it was a matter between the clubs I doubt they would have registerd Carvell if they thought there was a realistic cjance of legal recourse. As Franny Cummins stated early today "time to move on"......

Couldnt see this coming could we? oh well let them take legal action, aslong as carvs thinks he could walkaway from them over ownership of the bulls, & we never approached a contracted player we are ok as a club, carvs may get a ban if the bulls can prove otherwise & maybe a fine, we get a top no nonsense prop, so all good for us imho.

Ban and fine? Nope. It's an employment tribunal matter between Carvell and Bradford Bulls. Technically, although I'm sure the club will support him it's nothing to do with either Hull FC or RFL.

Incidentally, neither Hulls lawyers or HR would have being allowed to advise Carvell. He has to appoint his own, which imagine his agent has done.

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).

Please tell me they don't actually believe this to be the case?









What a set of absolute clowns, at least get a solicitor to read it before you put it out. I feel so sorry for their fans.

That worked well in Cookie's case

We never pursued it, so we will never know. Anyhow, the situation is similar, we would have had to demonstrate losses which we would have probably struggled to do as it has to be quite clear cut.
.

Hmmmm... his transfer would have being under TUPE which doesn't actually change conditions on its own, they could well be right.

However, any other condition changes, I heard from example they had reduced salaries would be enough for constructive dismissal.

Cookies case was kr approaching him he wanted away from kath & co, so it was cheaper & better for kr to say paul approached them, hudge stayed looking sweet in rfls eyes. nothing really fc could do as he had not signed his agreed contract extension, which was very poor in house from our clubs behalf at the time.

I tend to agree with you on this. Employees are paid by companies, not clubs. Also if the RFL have registered Carvell as a Hull player, would it be safe to assume the noises being made earlier in the week regarding Bradford holding his registration are now a none issue? Have they relinquished his registration?

Mu understanding of TUPE is that the employee has to agree to it, Carvell didn't agree to be TUPE'd from OK Bulls to Bulls 2014 so effectively he resigned, don't think the Bulls have a case but we will see how it goes over the coming weeks.

That said don't want to be hearing anything like Carvell withdrawn from Friday's game after picking up a knock in training......

What that means is they rejected his rejection of the new company due to terms in his contract whereby the term 'the club' referred to Bradford Bulls no matter who owned it! It's amateurish at best, they can't honestly believe that they can get away with that crap? They'll get taken to the cleaners in court.

The club doesn't exist in law so can't enter into a contract. His contract was with OK bulls Ltd (or whatever it was called) and he has every right to refuse the TUPE transfer. bradford are FUBAR'd

He can't have been registered as he didn't have a contract with the new company, i'm assuming (although with the RFL that could be dangerous) they wouldn't have been able to register him without a valid contract, which obviously allows us to, and is probably why the RFL had stated they'd have no problem registering him with us.

Such a timely boost to bring one of my favourite players ever back home on the eve of the new season. Cheers AP & Radders!

Pre Feka and pre Lynch?

Excellent piece of business, strengthens the pack and adds some real go forward.

Certainly gives me more hope of matching Cats pack on Friday.

I know its a different scenario but with Cooke, the lack of a signed contract was appeared to be incidental to the registration and he was subsequently registered with the RFL as a rovers player. If the RFL are registering Carvell as a Hull player (and therefore a free agent) they must believe his contract with BB was null and void. Either way should Bradford's grievance be with the player or the RFL?

But simultaneously with Thackray. Do you see a pattern emerging?

I would have thought Bratfud would have more pressing things to spend money on than a futile legal action.

I also think it would be foolish of them to upset the RFL given their recent predicament. No official decision has been made yet on a possible points deduction for going into administration. Again.

In the Cooke situation, it was probably a failure of the RFL, as it was just a continuation of a contract somebody probably registered Cookie without even checking for a signed contract.
In this instance, it's hard to find blame with anyone but the Bulls for this situation, Carvell had rejected the newco and they've decided to just ignore that on some whim of a part of his contract which is extremely amateurish and utterly unenforceable. The RFL will have wanted to see contracts because of the whole TUPE thing.

Under TUPE you can refuse, but that on its own doesn't grant you a dismissal, constructive or otherwise. He would still be bound to his existing contractural conditions and could be held in violation of conditions. All TUPE is is a protection of employment conditions in a business transfer, not a change in employment conditions as required for constructive dismissal.

That said, my understanding is that they altered his conditions, I believe his salary. Which is clear contractural violation.

Either way. Providing Hull didn't make an approach, all is good from that point of view and the case against Carvell is very likely not worth perusing. I expect this to go away with a whimper.

Big lads all!

Nope, they wouldn't. Unless their actions were discriminatory, best an employee can get is lost income. You as an employee can't even claim legal costs. Something I've written to parliament about before as I believe the system of employment tribunals is very lopsided in favour of employers with disposable capital.

TUPE does allow resignation, but we'll have to wait and see.....