Contract dispute between Carvell and Bulls set for legal fight

Bradford Bulls are in a contractual dispute with Garreth Carvell, who has joined Hull FC

Bradford Bulls are in a contractual dispute with Garreth Carvell, who has joined Hull FC

First published in Sport
Last updated
Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , Bradford Bulls Reporter

The Bulls tonight claimed they have been left with no alternative but to take legal action against Garreth Carvell following his move to Hull FC.

The 32-year-old prop was today included in the Black and Whites’ 19-man squad to face Catalan Dragons on Friday night.

His contract at Hull has been registered with the Rugby Football League but Bradford claim  “this is a breach of contractual terms with the Bulls” and that the club are now taking legal action.

The contract dispute stems from the move into administration of OK Bulls Ltd on January 31.

A spokesperson for the club stated: “This information has come as a great surprise to all of us at the club.

“We believed that due to Garreth taking wages since last year and the fact that he still now has a club sponsored car we would be able to come to an understanding that would work out for all.

“We have now been left with no alternative but to take legal action.  

“A letter was sent to Carvell last week from the clubs HR specialist, ‘Elcons’ explaining that they did not accept his refusal to transfer to Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd, adding that his playing contract will only allow him to resign if the club is guilty of serious and persistent breach of the terms and conditions of this agreement.

“We are of the opinion that no such breach has taken place and therefore we assert that he was not entitled to resign from his position as the transfer of his employment in itself does not constitute a serious or persistent breach of the terms and conditions of his agreement.

“The letter went on to explain the Agreement, which was entered into last year, is with “the Club” being referred to as “Bradford Bulls”.

“The change in ownership does not affect this Agreement given that Bradford Bulls remains as the "Club.“ The letter finished off by requesting that Carvell return to work/training immediately.

“The club’s board will now turn back to the governing body to request guidance in this matter as well as moving forward with their own legal action.

“The board in no way wants to restrict a player from plying their trade but this and recent situations like this, could set an extremely dangerous precedent in regards to player contracts and, if all parties are not made accountable, they be viewed as ‘not worth the paper they’re written on’. 

“Here at the Provident Stadium we will continue to focus on the opening game of the season this week against the Castleford Tigers.”

Comments (51)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:03pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

The player clearly doesn't want to play for the club. What is the point is spending time and effort chasing him about when there are far more important things at stake like the survival of the club.
The player clearly doesn't want to play for the club. What is the point is spending time and effort chasing him about when there are far more important things at stake like the survival of the club. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: -11

9:13pm Wed 12 Feb 14

spanglishbull.uk says...

T.V.O.R,
Whilst agreeing basically in what you say if he has been accepting his wages and is still in possession of a club sponsored car do you not think he should not have taken his wages and returned the car if he had no intention of honouring his contract.
T.V.O.R, Whilst agreeing basically in what you say if he has been accepting his wages and is still in possession of a club sponsored car do you not think he should not have taken his wages and returned the car if he had no intention of honouring his contract. spanglishbull.uk
  • Score: 17

9:29pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

spanglishbull.uk wrote:
T.V.O.R,
Whilst agreeing basically in what you say if he has been accepting his wages and is still in possession of a club sponsored car do you not think he should not have taken his wages and returned the car if he had no intention of honouring his contract.
I'm guessing the wages he accepted were pre admin seeing as though admin was on the 31st Jan and he appears to have gone awol in the last week.
[quote][p][bold]spanglishbull.uk[/bold] wrote: T.V.O.R, Whilst agreeing basically in what you say if he has been accepting his wages and is still in possession of a club sponsored car do you not think he should not have taken his wages and returned the car if he had no intention of honouring his contract.[/p][/quote]I'm guessing the wages he accepted were pre admin seeing as though admin was on the 31st Jan and he appears to have gone awol in the last week. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: -6

9:30pm Wed 12 Feb 14

cj says...

agree with you Spanglish, one thing walking away but having taken wages and perks for several months is not right and we should seek comp for this money if nothing else.
agree with you Spanglish, one thing walking away but having taken wages and perks for several months is not right and we should seek comp for this money if nothing else. cj
  • Score: 9

9:32pm Wed 12 Feb 14

smitd says...

Oh dear this will only end in tears and a massive bill for Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited. Bradford Bulls is a trading name and not an employer, Carvel was employed by OK Bulls Limited trading as Bradford Bulls. OK Bulls Limited went out of business on 31/1and an entirely separate company Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited was formed. Caravels employer therefore ceased to exist on 31/1 and he had every right as does every employer of a limited company in the same situation to refuse to work for another company. The name Bradford Bulls is a red herring it does not nor ever has employed anyone. Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited has not paid his wages since last year, OK Bulls Limited did, but they no longer exist end of story. Empty threats by Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited me thinks.
Oh dear this will only end in tears and a massive bill for Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited. Bradford Bulls is a trading name and not an employer, Carvel was employed by OK Bulls Limited trading as Bradford Bulls. OK Bulls Limited went out of business on 31/1and an entirely separate company Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited was formed. Caravels employer therefore ceased to exist on 31/1 and he had every right as does every employer of a limited company in the same situation to refuse to work for another company. The name Bradford Bulls is a red herring it does not nor ever has employed anyone. Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited has not paid his wages since last year, OK Bulls Limited did, but they no longer exist end of story. Empty threats by Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited me thinks. smitd
  • Score: -7

9:42pm Wed 12 Feb 14

AUGUST1964 says...

smitd wrote:
Oh dear this will only end in tears and a massive bill for Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited. Bradford Bulls is a trading name and not an employer, Carvel was employed by OK Bulls Limited trading as Bradford Bulls. OK Bulls Limited went out of business on 31/1and an entirely separate company Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited was formed. Caravels employer therefore ceased to exist on 31/1 and he had every right as does every employer of a limited company in the same situation to refuse to work for another company. The name Bradford Bulls is a red herring it does not nor ever has employed anyone. Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited has not paid his wages since last year, OK Bulls Limited did, but they no longer exist end of story. Empty threats by Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited me thinks.
And how do you know he refused his contract on that very?
It makes a difference.

"Sports lawyer Richard Cramer, of Leeds-based firm FrontRow Legal, said Carvell would legally be within his rights to walk away from his contract with Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd provided he notified the club on the day of the change of ownership".

He said: “There is no obligation from the employer to ask the employee if they wish to transfer their contract from the old to new company – the transfer automatically takes place".

“But under regulation four of the TUPE regulations 2006, an employee has the right to terminate his contract of employment by giving notice on the day of the transfer of the undertaking."
[quote][p][bold]smitd[/bold] wrote: Oh dear this will only end in tears and a massive bill for Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited. Bradford Bulls is a trading name and not an employer, Carvel was employed by OK Bulls Limited trading as Bradford Bulls. OK Bulls Limited went out of business on 31/1and an entirely separate company Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited was formed. Caravels employer therefore ceased to exist on 31/1 and he had every right as does every employer of a limited company in the same situation to refuse to work for another company. The name Bradford Bulls is a red herring it does not nor ever has employed anyone. Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited has not paid his wages since last year, OK Bulls Limited did, but they no longer exist end of story. Empty threats by Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited me thinks.[/p][/quote]And how do you know he refused his contract on that very? It makes a difference. "Sports lawyer Richard Cramer, of Leeds-based firm FrontRow Legal, said Carvell would legally be within his rights to walk away from his contract with Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd provided he notified the club on the day of the change of ownership". He said: “There is no obligation from the employer to ask the employee if they wish to transfer their contract from the old to new company – the transfer automatically takes place". “But under regulation four of the TUPE regulations 2006, an employee has the right to terminate his contract of employment by giving notice on the day of the transfer of the undertaking." AUGUST1964
  • Score: 6

9:47pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

What if the legal action is granted in Bradford's favour and Carvell was made to return and honor his original contract. You'd get a player who didn't want to play for the club, the fans wouldn't want him playing for the club and his wages would be added to the bill once again.
What if the legal action is granted in Bradford's favour and Carvell was made to return and honor his original contract. You'd get a player who didn't want to play for the club, the fans wouldn't want him playing for the club and his wages would be added to the bill once again. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 1

9:48pm Wed 12 Feb 14

smitd says...

You can bet your bottom dollar that he did everything by the book why else would RFU sanction the transfer
You can bet your bottom dollar that he did everything by the book why else would RFU sanction the transfer smitd
  • Score: -2

9:49pm Wed 12 Feb 14

smitd says...

Sorry meant RFL not RFU
Sorry meant RFL not RFU smitd
  • Score: 1

9:51pm Wed 12 Feb 14

smitd says...

If the courts found in favour of bradford Bulls 2014 Limited they would never force him to return they would simply award damages for breach of contract.
If the courts found in favour of bradford Bulls 2014 Limited they would never force him to return they would simply award damages for breach of contract. smitd
  • Score: 12

9:52pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

cj wrote:
agree with you Spanglish, one thing walking away but having taken wages and perks for several months is not right and we should seek comp for this money if nothing else.
It's Carvell not Hull who legal action is being taken against. You'll recieve no compo fro Hull.
[quote][p][bold]cj[/bold] wrote: agree with you Spanglish, one thing walking away but having taken wages and perks for several months is not right and we should seek comp for this money if nothing else.[/p][/quote]It's Carvell not Hull who legal action is being taken against. You'll recieve no compo fro Hull. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 0

9:57pm Wed 12 Feb 14

The Man From the Pru says...

DO YOU ALL THINK, that the Bulls will not have gone into this in detail, with their lawyers, most likely the ones mentioned by August 1964.

Trouble is I believe that this is a case that the Bulls, will win. Hull will not want to go through the same thing as the Giants, so a settlement out of court, would seem likely. Plus Carvell, might end up out of pocket as well, through his rash move of keeping car, receiving monies when he knew he wasn't entitled. But all this is pure conjecture on my part, as no doubt some will readily point out and try to put me right. But to take a leaf out someone on here's book, you heard it here first.
DO YOU ALL THINK, that the Bulls will not have gone into this in detail, with their lawyers, most likely the ones mentioned by August 1964. Trouble is I believe that this is a case that the Bulls, will win. Hull will not want to go through the same thing as the Giants, so a settlement out of court, would seem likely. Plus Carvell, might end up out of pocket as well, through his rash move of keeping car, receiving monies when he knew he wasn't entitled. But all this is pure conjecture on my part, as no doubt some will readily point out and try to put me right. But to take a leaf out someone on here's book, you heard it here first. The Man From the Pru
  • Score: 1

10:04pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

The statement confirms Carvell refused his contract to be transfered to Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd so with that statement they acknowledge a transfer has taken place.

His wage and car prior to this transfer is totally irrelvant in all this.
The statement confirms Carvell refused his contract to be transfered to Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd so with that statement they acknowledge a transfer has taken place. His wage and car prior to this transfer is totally irrelvant in all this. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 3

10:15pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

The Man From the Pru wrote:
DO YOU ALL THINK, that the Bulls will not have gone into this in detail, with their lawyers, most likely the ones mentioned by August 1964.

Trouble is I believe that this is a case that the Bulls, will win. Hull will not want to go through the same thing as the Giants, so a settlement out of court, would seem likely. Plus Carvell, might end up out of pocket as well, through his rash move of keeping car, receiving monies when he knew he wasn't entitled. But all this is pure conjecture on my part, as no doubt some will readily point out and try to put me right. But to take a leaf out someone on here's book, you heard it here first.
He was entitled to his wages. He was receiving them as an employee of OK Bulls who he was contracted too. He refused to transfer as was his right. The legal bods seem to know this so are trying to get him on a technicality based on "the club" and not "the company".

Hull won't be invloved in any legal battle as it's Carvell who is being challenged not Hull who the RFL appear to believe have signed a free agent.
[quote][p][bold]The Man From the Pru[/bold] wrote: DO YOU ALL THINK, that the Bulls will not have gone into this in detail, with their lawyers, most likely the ones mentioned by August 1964. Trouble is I believe that this is a case that the Bulls, will win. Hull will not want to go through the same thing as the Giants, so a settlement out of court, would seem likely. Plus Carvell, might end up out of pocket as well, through his rash move of keeping car, receiving monies when he knew he wasn't entitled. But all this is pure conjecture on my part, as no doubt some will readily point out and try to put me right. But to take a leaf out someone on here's book, you heard it here first.[/p][/quote]He was entitled to his wages. He was receiving them as an employee of OK Bulls who he was contracted too. He refused to transfer as was his right. The legal bods seem to know this so are trying to get him on a technicality based on "the club" and not "the company". Hull won't be invloved in any legal battle as it's Carvell who is being challenged not Hull who the RFL appear to believe have signed a free agent. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 1

10:19pm Wed 12 Feb 14

northern pig says...

would the RFL register Carvells conract with Hull,If he was still conracted to the Bulls? I would not have thought so,It is all down to the interpretation of the TUPE rule.Either way, going down the litiigation route,Is going to cost one of the three parties, money.Let us hope its not the bulls.
would the RFL register Carvells conract with Hull,If he was still conracted to the Bulls? I would not have thought so,It is all down to the interpretation of the TUPE rule.Either way, going down the litiigation route,Is going to cost one of the three parties, money.Let us hope its not the bulls. northern pig
  • Score: -1

10:19pm Wed 12 Feb 14

bradfordbronco says...

Legally we don't have the facts to make a judgement. Morally the Bulls are right and Carvell and Hull are in the wrong. Hope some sort of common sense can be found but sad to say Hull have gone about this in a completely underhand manner. They could have paid a fee which the Bulls would have welcomed. Surprised the RFL have made a decision so quickly, its nor like them and if they back Hull tat will open his a hornets nest.
Legally we don't have the facts to make a judgement. Morally the Bulls are right and Carvell and Hull are in the wrong. Hope some sort of common sense can be found but sad to say Hull have gone about this in a completely underhand manner. They could have paid a fee which the Bulls would have welcomed. Surprised the RFL have made a decision so quickly, its nor like them and if they back Hull tat will open his a hornets nest. bradfordbronco
  • Score: 3

10:19pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

smitd wrote:
Oh dear this will only end in tears and a massive bill for Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited. Bradford Bulls is a trading name and not an employer, Carvel was employed by OK Bulls Limited trading as Bradford Bulls. OK Bulls Limited went out of business on 31/1and an entirely separate company Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited was formed. Caravels employer therefore ceased to exist on 31/1 and he had every right as does every employer of a limited company in the same situation to refuse to work for another company. The name Bradford Bulls is a red herring it does not nor ever has employed anyone. Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited has not paid his wages since last year, OK Bulls Limited did, but they no longer exist end of story. Empty threats by Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited me thinks.
Your getting voted down for not towing the party line. The car and wages are a red herring and have been quoted to gain support from the fans.

The statement makes if clear Carvell refused the transfer. One of the risks of admin.
[quote][p][bold]smitd[/bold] wrote: Oh dear this will only end in tears and a massive bill for Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited. Bradford Bulls is a trading name and not an employer, Carvel was employed by OK Bulls Limited trading as Bradford Bulls. OK Bulls Limited went out of business on 31/1and an entirely separate company Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited was formed. Caravels employer therefore ceased to exist on 31/1 and he had every right as does every employer of a limited company in the same situation to refuse to work for another company. The name Bradford Bulls is a red herring it does not nor ever has employed anyone. Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited has not paid his wages since last year, OK Bulls Limited did, but they no longer exist end of story. Empty threats by Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited me thinks.[/p][/quote]Your getting voted down for not towing the party line. The car and wages are a red herring and have been quoted to gain support from the fans. The statement makes if clear Carvell refused the transfer. One of the risks of admin. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Wed 12 Feb 14

bradfordbronco says...

The RFL need to look back at their actions with the Bulls since Caisley called in the administrators. Had they not put stupid conditions on the transfer of the license we would have much stronger bids coming in for the club other than the only bid being from Omar Khan

If they say to Mr Lamb you can buy the club but you might not be playing in SL this season and you wont get your SL money then do you think he will be interested in taking over I doubt it. The RFL needs to encourage new money into the game not try put people off investing.

The RFL have caused so many of the problems that the Bulls have experienced. Their penalties have ensured we struggle to our head above water and back on our feet. When we needed help we just got more punishment.

I'm not saying they are solely to blame but they haven't helped
The RFL need to look back at their actions with the Bulls since Caisley called in the administrators. Had they not put stupid conditions on the transfer of the license we would have much stronger bids coming in for the club other than the only bid being from Omar Khan If they say to Mr Lamb you can buy the club but you might not be playing in SL this season and you wont get your SL money then do you think he will be interested in taking over I doubt it. The RFL needs to encourage new money into the game not try put people off investing. The RFL have caused so many of the problems that the Bulls have experienced. Their penalties have ensured we struggle to our head above water and back on our feet. When we needed help we just got more punishment. I'm not saying they are solely to blame but they haven't helped bradfordbronco
  • Score: 11

10:50pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

bradfordbronco wrote:
The RFL need to look back at their actions with the Bulls since Caisley called in the administrators. Had they not put stupid conditions on the transfer of the license we would have much stronger bids coming in for the club other than the only bid being from Omar Khan

If they say to Mr Lamb you can buy the club but you might not be playing in SL this season and you wont get your SL money then do you think he will be interested in taking over I doubt it. The RFL needs to encourage new money into the game not try put people off investing.

The RFL have caused so many of the problems that the Bulls have experienced. Their penalties have ensured we struggle to our head above water and back on our feet. When we needed help we just got more punishment.

I'm not saying they are solely to blame but they haven't helped
The RFL have already given the Bulls an advancement of monies so whoever takes over seems to be at a disadvantage from the start as their budget is partially spent. Though there seems little option other than to advance the monies or players many not have been paid.
[quote][p][bold]bradfordbronco[/bold] wrote: The RFL need to look back at their actions with the Bulls since Caisley called in the administrators. Had they not put stupid conditions on the transfer of the license we would have much stronger bids coming in for the club other than the only bid being from Omar Khan If they say to Mr Lamb you can buy the club but you might not be playing in SL this season and you wont get your SL money then do you think he will be interested in taking over I doubt it. The RFL needs to encourage new money into the game not try put people off investing. The RFL have caused so many of the problems that the Bulls have experienced. Their penalties have ensured we struggle to our head above water and back on our feet. When we needed help we just got more punishment. I'm not saying they are solely to blame but they haven't helped[/p][/quote]The RFL have already given the Bulls an advancement of monies so whoever takes over seems to be at a disadvantage from the start as their budget is partially spent. Though there seems little option other than to advance the monies or players many not have been paid. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 2

10:51pm Wed 12 Feb 14

smitd says...

Thank you Thee Voice of Reason at least we both know what the ultimate consequences of this action by ''The Bulls '' is likely to be
Thank you Thee Voice of Reason at least we both know what the ultimate consequences of this action by ''The Bulls '' is likely to be smitd
  • Score: 3

10:55pm Wed 12 Feb 14

The Man From the Pru says...

TVOR has spoken, chaps, heed what he says, as he is always right. Plus he also appears to have great knowledge of legal system. As well as Finance. But his chief facet is " stating the obvious and believing others are bothered, by what he says "

What all this boils down to is that the RFL are going to have to make a statement re contracts or we will find players walking out on clubs on the slightest pretext.

Carvell, when he left should have returned the car. As to wages, do we actually know on what date the Bulls pay their salaries to staff, re being paid for January. Another thing here is when were the players told there was a possibility that the OK Bulls were going into Admin. As there appears to have been short turn round period, 2 hrs, between going into Admin and being brought out of it. If the rule states that he can walk if he tells them at the time of Admin. He must have had prior knowledge of date and time.

What ever the case, Hull FC, his agent have to take some of the blame. If he did every thing by the book, how come Hull had a contract etc worked out and ready to sign. This stinks of under handed dealings. But as stated before, this is pure conjecture on my part.
TVOR has spoken, chaps, heed what he says, as he is always right. Plus he also appears to have great knowledge of legal system. As well as Finance. But his chief facet is " stating the obvious and believing others are bothered, by what he says " What all this boils down to is that the RFL are going to have to make a statement re contracts or we will find players walking out on clubs on the slightest pretext. Carvell, when he left should have returned the car. As to wages, do we actually know on what date the Bulls pay their salaries to staff, re being paid for January. Another thing here is when were the players told there was a possibility that the OK Bulls were going into Admin. As there appears to have been short turn round period, 2 hrs, between going into Admin and being brought out of it. If the rule states that he can walk if he tells them at the time of Admin. He must have had prior knowledge of date and time. What ever the case, Hull FC, his agent have to take some of the blame. If he did every thing by the book, how come Hull had a contract etc worked out and ready to sign. This stinks of under handed dealings. But as stated before, this is pure conjecture on my part. The Man From the Pru
  • Score: 1

10:58pm Wed 12 Feb 14

jandg63 says...

as GC has now left the club, can we airbrush him out of the team photo we all happily posed for, including the above mentioned player.
as GC has now left the club, can we airbrush him out of the team photo we all happily posed for, including the above mentioned player. jandg63
  • Score: 0

11:00pm Wed 12 Feb 14

AUGUST1964 says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
smitd wrote: Oh dear this will only end in tears and a massive bill for Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited. Bradford Bulls is a trading name and not an employer, Carvel was employed by OK Bulls Limited trading as Bradford Bulls. OK Bulls Limited went out of business on 31/1and an entirely separate company Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited was formed. Caravels employer therefore ceased to exist on 31/1 and he had every right as does every employer of a limited company in the same situation to refuse to work for another company. The name Bradford Bulls is a red herring it does not nor ever has employed anyone. Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited has not paid his wages since last year, OK Bulls Limited did, but they no longer exist end of story. Empty threats by Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited me thinks.
Your getting voted down for not towing the party line. The car and wages are a red herring and have been quoted to gain support from the fans. The statement makes if clear Carvell refused the transfer. One of the risks of admin.
You really are right out of the tool box,I notice when an article is actually rugby related you ain't got a clue,what do you think the Bulls line up will be this Sunday?

We'all waiting.
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smitd[/bold] wrote: Oh dear this will only end in tears and a massive bill for Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited. Bradford Bulls is a trading name and not an employer, Carvel was employed by OK Bulls Limited trading as Bradford Bulls. OK Bulls Limited went out of business on 31/1and an entirely separate company Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited was formed. Caravels employer therefore ceased to exist on 31/1 and he had every right as does every employer of a limited company in the same situation to refuse to work for another company. The name Bradford Bulls is a red herring it does not nor ever has employed anyone. Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited has not paid his wages since last year, OK Bulls Limited did, but they no longer exist end of story. Empty threats by Bradford Bulls 2014 Limited me thinks.[/p][/quote]Your getting voted down for not towing the party line. The car and wages are a red herring and have been quoted to gain support from the fans. The statement makes if clear Carvell refused the transfer. One of the risks of admin.[/p][/quote]You really are right out of the tool box,I notice when an article is actually rugby related you ain't got a clue,what do you think the Bulls line up will be this Sunday? We'all waiting. AUGUST1964
  • Score: -3

11:04pm Wed 12 Feb 14

bradfordbronco says...

In fact now i've thought about for another 20mins. The RFL sat down at a meeting Bradford 2014 Ltd and OK Bulls Ltd on the 6th January. They agreed to the take over. They were present when OK Bulls was placed into admin and Bradford Bulls 2014 bought the the Bulls off the Administrator. The RFL DO have the full facts at hand and yet they cant decide if the Bulls should be punished further.

The really complicated Carvell legal case arose just last week, which can only be sorted out in a court of law and in which The RFL who DONT have the full facts have today decided that Carvell is now a registered Hull player. Even though the legal procedure hasn't taken place and agreement certainly hasn't been reached between the two clubs. How come they have acted with such speed and before a court of law has made a decision and yet with the Bulls its only their own rules the're trying to make up as they go along and yet they don't know how to make a .

Are the RFL deliberately looking for ways to punish the Bulls? I think it is now a fair question to ask. has somebody at the RFL got a personal vendetta against the club? it is looking that way to me!!!!
In fact now i've thought about for another 20mins. The RFL sat down at a meeting Bradford 2014 Ltd and OK Bulls Ltd on the 6th January. They agreed to the take over. They were present when OK Bulls was placed into admin and Bradford Bulls 2014 bought the the Bulls off the Administrator. The RFL DO have the full facts at hand and yet they cant decide if the Bulls should be punished further. The really complicated Carvell legal case arose just last week, which can only be sorted out in a court of law and in which The RFL who DONT have the full facts have today decided that Carvell is now a registered Hull player. Even though the legal procedure hasn't taken place and agreement certainly hasn't been reached between the two clubs. How come they have acted with such speed and before a court of law has made a decision and yet with the Bulls its only their own rules the're trying to make up as they go along and yet they don't know how to make a . Are the RFL deliberately looking for ways to punish the Bulls? I think it is now a fair question to ask. has somebody at the RFL got a personal vendetta against the club? it is looking that way to me!!!! bradfordbronco
  • Score: 5

11:29pm Wed 12 Feb 14

hx3bantam says...

Don't think the RFL have any choice other than accept Hull's registration of Carvell. They don't know who he belongs to. Hull need to register him to allow him to play on Friday. It's up to Bulls and Carvell to sort out his contract situation. In the RFL and Hulls eyes he's a free agent. That may turn out to not be the case but for the RFL to get involved and refuse to register him would be foolish. Didn't they accept Harris's registration with the Bulls? You can't have it all ways up!
Don't think the RFL have any choice other than accept Hull's registration of Carvell. They don't know who he belongs to. Hull need to register him to allow him to play on Friday. It's up to Bulls and Carvell to sort out his contract situation. In the RFL and Hulls eyes he's a free agent. That may turn out to not be the case but for the RFL to get involved and refuse to register him would be foolish. Didn't they accept Harris's registration with the Bulls? You can't have it all ways up! hx3bantam
  • Score: 5

11:58pm Wed 12 Feb 14

portugalbull says...

Look at the situation with kopout. RFL finished up looking foolish after the Mason court case.
RFL have a lot to answer for but we won't ever get the full story of their involvement on either of the change of ownerships.
True they may advance monies but you can be sure they will secured creditors, with HM Revenue, if things went wrong.

We have to move on now to events on the field. Lets hope FC and the team can use this as motivation to show we are still a force to be reconciled with, starting with Cas on Sunday.
Coyb's
Look at the situation with kopout. RFL finished up looking foolish after the Mason court case. RFL have a lot to answer for but we won't ever get the full story of their involvement on either of the change of ownerships. True they may advance monies but you can be sure they will secured creditors, with HM Revenue, if things went wrong. We have to move on now to events on the field. Lets hope FC and the team can use this as motivation to show we are still a force to be reconciled with, starting with Cas on Sunday. Coyb's portugalbull
  • Score: 1

12:16am Thu 13 Feb 14

bradfordbronco says...

hx3bantam wrote:
Don't think the RFL have any choice other than accept Hull's registration of Carvell. They don't know who he belongs to. Hull need to register him to allow him to play on Friday. It's up to Bulls and Carvell to sort out his contract situation. In the RFL and Hulls eyes he's a free agent. That may turn out to not be the case but for the RFL to get involved and refuse to register him would be foolish. Didn't they accept Harris's registration with the Bulls? You can't have it all ways up!
I think they would have been better NOT accepting his registration with Hull until they had examined all the facts. Carvell should be in limbo until an agreement is reached one way or the other.

Where is all their due diligence when you need it???
[quote][p][bold]hx3bantam[/bold] wrote: Don't think the RFL have any choice other than accept Hull's registration of Carvell. They don't know who he belongs to. Hull need to register him to allow him to play on Friday. It's up to Bulls and Carvell to sort out his contract situation. In the RFL and Hulls eyes he's a free agent. That may turn out to not be the case but for the RFL to get involved and refuse to register him would be foolish. Didn't they accept Harris's registration with the Bulls? You can't have it all ways up![/p][/quote]I think they would have been better NOT accepting his registration with Hull until they had examined all the facts. Carvell should be in limbo until an agreement is reached one way or the other. Where is all their due diligence when you need it??? bradfordbronco
  • Score: 4

1:58am Thu 13 Feb 14

Arhmen Noleg says...

I have to agree the RFL in failing to act when they could bring this to a speedy close is wrong.
Carvell is likely to have been paid months since players returned in December.
The employer has admitted insolvency,an "untenable" (hopeless)position.T
hey operate under a 28 day temporary License.
Employment Tribunals can rumble on for months.
The club certainly do not want him back and anywhere near the dressing room.
Hull should do the decent thing having beneftted to the tune of £100000 of Bulls sanctioned Sky money and cough up.
Bulls have put resources into this man been ready to play this Friday
Let the compensation issue rumble on.

Some things are better resolved on the pitch.
If I were in charge when Hull Play Bulls I would put 2 young Bulls raring to go on the old man with a express instruction to destroy.One attack the bollock the other the jacksy.
That should finish it
And him

Hope he stuck a few quid in the hardship pot before the moonlight for his former colleagues not so lucky.Mainly not players at the moment.
But I doubt it
I have to agree the RFL in failing to act when they could bring this to a speedy close is wrong. Carvell is likely to have been paid months since players returned in December. The employer has admitted insolvency,an "untenable" (hopeless)position.T hey operate under a 28 day temporary License. Employment Tribunals can rumble on for months. The club certainly do not want him back and anywhere near the dressing room. Hull should do the decent thing having beneftted to the tune of £100000 of Bulls sanctioned Sky money and cough up. Bulls have put resources into this man been ready to play this Friday Let the compensation issue rumble on. Some things are better resolved on the pitch. If I were in charge when Hull Play Bulls I would put 2 young Bulls raring to go on the old man with a express instruction to destroy.One attack the bollock the other the jacksy. That should finish it And him Hope he stuck a few quid in the hardship pot before the moonlight for his former colleagues not so lucky.Mainly not players at the moment. But I doubt it Arhmen Noleg
  • Score: 3

5:55am Thu 13 Feb 14

fedupwiththeBS says...

here we go again, lets slag off a man who has done the right thing by his family by finding himself an employer that can guarantee to pay his wages each month.

Please lets not stoop to the levels that certain people did on here and other social network sites when Koppy left. GC would not have made this decision lightly as he was keen to play for the Club.

The parties bidding for the Club will have nothing left to bid for at this rate.

The fact that all Club online financial transactions are going through a Bedz R Us paypal account should be ringing alarm bells.
here we go again, lets slag off a man who has done the right thing by his family by finding himself an employer that can guarantee to pay his wages each month. Please lets not stoop to the levels that certain people did on here and other social network sites when Koppy left. GC would not have made this decision lightly as he was keen to play for the Club. The parties bidding for the Club will have nothing left to bid for at this rate. The fact that all Club online financial transactions are going through a Bedz R Us paypal account should be ringing alarm bells. fedupwiththeBS
  • Score: 0

6:13am Thu 13 Feb 14

Arhmen Noleg says...

fedupwiththeBS wrote:
here we go again, lets slag off a man who has done the right thing by his family by finding himself an employer that can guarantee to pay his wages each month.

Please lets not stoop to the levels that certain people did on here and other social network sites when Koppy left. GC would not have made this decision lightly as he was keen to play for the Club.

The parties bidding for the Club will have nothing left to bid for at this rate.

The fact that all Club online financial transactions are going through a Bedz R Us paypal account should be ringing alarm bells.
Hope they have a good accountant up there.
Web site states Andrew Calverts firm too providing pay portal.
I dont think Carvell took his decision lightly.
But Hull should cough up some compo.

The legal argument floated is so amateurish it worries me these three Amgos are completely out of their depth.
His contract was with his employer OK Bulls Ltd.
God knows who employs them all right now but in any event they only have authority for 28 days from 31.1.2014.
And all the brass gong through someone else?
Maybe the banks have (all) given up on the job and wont even take money now.
Yes your right.A truly frightening development
[quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: here we go again, lets slag off a man who has done the right thing by his family by finding himself an employer that can guarantee to pay his wages each month. Please lets not stoop to the levels that certain people did on here and other social network sites when Koppy left. GC would not have made this decision lightly as he was keen to play for the Club. The parties bidding for the Club will have nothing left to bid for at this rate. The fact that all Club online financial transactions are going through a Bedz R Us paypal account should be ringing alarm bells.[/p][/quote]Hope they have a good accountant up there. Web site states Andrew Calverts firm too providing pay portal. I dont think Carvell took his decision lightly. But Hull should cough up some compo. The legal argument floated is so amateurish it worries me these three Amgos are completely out of their depth. His contract was with his employer OK Bulls Ltd. God knows who employs them all right now but in any event they only have authority for 28 days from 31.1.2014. And all the brass gong through someone else? Maybe the banks have (all) given up on the job and wont even take money now. Yes your right.A truly frightening development Arhmen Noleg
  • Score: 1

9:04am Thu 13 Feb 14

mines a pint says...

smitd wrote:
You can bet your bottom dollar that he did everything by the book why else would RFU sanction the transfer
They haven,t they have stayed well clear of the whole debacle & constantly said it is a club matter and has nothing to do with the RFL

They have not taken either side they so far have refused to confirm Bradford are right to hold on to his registration in the same way they have not publicly agreed to his move to Hull

Typical Red Hall BS which will only reflect bad on the sport

If this happened in RFU the governing body would have been all over it from the outset & it would have been settled by now

By refusing to provide any clear guidance to either club the RFL are now going to get dragged into the legal wrangle whether they like it of not

They are a total joke & the sport will go nowhere as long as we have clowns in charge
[quote][p][bold]smitd[/bold] wrote: You can bet your bottom dollar that he did everything by the book why else would RFU sanction the transfer[/p][/quote]They haven,t they have stayed well clear of the whole debacle & constantly said it is a club matter and has nothing to do with the RFL They have not taken either side they so far have refused to confirm Bradford are right to hold on to his registration in the same way they have not publicly agreed to his move to Hull Typical Red Hall BS which will only reflect bad on the sport If this happened in RFU the governing body would have been all over it from the outset & it would have been settled by now By refusing to provide any clear guidance to either club the RFL are now going to get dragged into the legal wrangle whether they like it of not They are a total joke & the sport will go nowhere as long as we have clowns in charge mines a pint
  • Score: 2

9:16am Thu 13 Feb 14

spanglishbull.uk says...

For the good of the club,get the car back,let him go his own way and let us get on with playing Rugby and trying to save the club.He does not want to be at Odsal,anybody who has been in a dressing room knows you do not want players in there who do not want to be there.Bye,Bye,end of Carvell,end of story.
For the good of the club,get the car back,let him go his own way and let us get on with playing Rugby and trying to save the club.He does not want to be at Odsal,anybody who has been in a dressing room knows you do not want players in there who do not want to be there.Bye,Bye,end of Carvell,end of story. spanglishbull.uk
  • Score: 7

9:29am Thu 13 Feb 14

StevieLad says...

Arhmen Noleg wrote:
fedupwiththeBS wrote:
here we go again, lets slag off a man who has done the right thing by his family by finding himself an employer that can guarantee to pay his wages each month.

Please lets not stoop to the levels that certain people did on here and other social network sites when Koppy left. GC would not have made this decision lightly as he was keen to play for the Club.

The parties bidding for the Club will have nothing left to bid for at this rate.

The fact that all Club online financial transactions are going through a Bedz R Us paypal account should be ringing alarm bells.
Hope they have a good accountant up there.
Web site states Andrew Calverts firm too providing pay portal.
I dont think Carvell took his decision lightly.
But Hull should cough up some compo.

The legal argument floated is so amateurish it worries me these three Amgos are completely out of their depth.
His contract was with his employer OK Bulls Ltd.
God knows who employs them all right now but in any event they only have authority for 28 days from 31.1.2014.
And all the brass gong through someone else?
Maybe the banks have (all) given up on the job and wont even take money now.
Yes your right.A truly frightening development
Do you think the legal threat might just be posturing, to a) keep the fans on side and b) warn off other players from leaving
[quote][p][bold]Arhmen Noleg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: here we go again, lets slag off a man who has done the right thing by his family by finding himself an employer that can guarantee to pay his wages each month. Please lets not stoop to the levels that certain people did on here and other social network sites when Koppy left. GC would not have made this decision lightly as he was keen to play for the Club. The parties bidding for the Club will have nothing left to bid for at this rate. The fact that all Club online financial transactions are going through a Bedz R Us paypal account should be ringing alarm bells.[/p][/quote]Hope they have a good accountant up there. Web site states Andrew Calverts firm too providing pay portal. I dont think Carvell took his decision lightly. But Hull should cough up some compo. The legal argument floated is so amateurish it worries me these three Amgos are completely out of their depth. His contract was with his employer OK Bulls Ltd. God knows who employs them all right now but in any event they only have authority for 28 days from 31.1.2014. And all the brass gong through someone else? Maybe the banks have (all) given up on the job and wont even take money now. Yes your right.A truly frightening development[/p][/quote]Do you think the legal threat might just be posturing, to a) keep the fans on side and b) warn off other players from leaving StevieLad
  • Score: 3

9:34am Thu 13 Feb 14

mines a pint says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
What if the legal action is granted in Bradford's favour and Carvell was made to return and honor his original contract. You'd get a player who didn't want to play for the club, the fans wouldn't want him playing for the club and his wages would be added to the bill once again.
And the most important bit you have missed from your quote which stated the only way Bradford could expect any form of compensation from Hull would be if they could prove he was tapped up before the administration / transfer of ownership took place

What is worrying in this article is that there is no mention of this & that the club are pursuing breach of contract which is a none starter if there is no proof of tapping up & GC advised the new owners on the day of transfer that he did not want his contract transferring

Just hope the advise they are receiving is better than that the club got about Harris

VERY WORRYING!!!
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: What if the legal action is granted in Bradford's favour and Carvell was made to return and honor his original contract. You'd get a player who didn't want to play for the club, the fans wouldn't want him playing for the club and his wages would be added to the bill once again.[/p][/quote]And the most important bit you have missed from your quote which stated the only way Bradford could expect any form of compensation from Hull would be if they could prove he was tapped up before the administration / transfer of ownership took place What is worrying in this article is that there is no mention of this & that the club are pursuing breach of contract which is a none starter if there is no proof of tapping up & GC advised the new owners on the day of transfer that he did not want his contract transferring Just hope the advise they are receiving is better than that the club got about Harris VERY WORRYING!!! mines a pint
  • Score: -1

9:36am Thu 13 Feb 14

mines a pint says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
What if the legal action is granted in Bradford's favour and Carvell was made to return and honor his original contract. You'd get a player who didn't want to play for the club, the fans wouldn't want him playing for the club and his wages would be added to the bill once again.
In such an even I suspect the outcome will be the same as with Kopout & the clubs will agree a nominal fee for his transfer

Franny has made it very clear he only wants players who want to be at the club
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: What if the legal action is granted in Bradford's favour and Carvell was made to return and honor his original contract. You'd get a player who didn't want to play for the club, the fans wouldn't want him playing for the club and his wages would be added to the bill once again.[/p][/quote]In such an even I suspect the outcome will be the same as with Kopout & the clubs will agree a nominal fee for his transfer Franny has made it very clear he only wants players who want to be at the club mines a pint
  • Score: 1

9:43am Thu 13 Feb 14

mines a pint says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
The statement confirms Carvell refused his contract to be transfered to Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd so with that statement they acknowledge a transfer has taken place.

His wage and car prior to this transfer is totally irrelvant in all this.
If he notified the club that he did not want his contract to transfer after the day of transfer of ownership of the club then the new club have every right to refuse hie request under TUPE regulations

Worryingly the article does not say this & as a material fact you would expect that if he missed the deadline for notification the clubs employment advisors would have reported this

Can see this costing the club money I can not see Hull dipping into their pockets unless they are forced to & it is becoming harder & harder to see what case BB can make
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: The statement confirms Carvell refused his contract to be transfered to Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd so with that statement they acknowledge a transfer has taken place. His wage and car prior to this transfer is totally irrelvant in all this.[/p][/quote]If he notified the club that he did not want his contract to transfer after the day of transfer of ownership of the club then the new club have every right to refuse hie request under TUPE regulations Worryingly the article does not say this & as a material fact you would expect that if he missed the deadline for notification the clubs employment advisors would have reported this Can see this costing the club money I can not see Hull dipping into their pockets unless they are forced to & it is becoming harder & harder to see what case BB can make mines a pint
  • Score: 1

12:24pm Thu 13 Feb 14

bartsbull says...

let him go he does not want to play for the club and we do not want him people
are missing the point i have no problem with the player looking after his own interest it is the way it as been carried out

The Question how can the RFL register a player at two different clubs they are suposed to have sat at the meeting with the new owners through the OK saga
So i would believe they have cleared all the registration of players still at our club or can they also walk away

They knew what the position was with the players and i assume there contracts with the club this opens a big door in regard to any players contract
let him go he does not want to play for the club and we do not want him people are missing the point i have no problem with the player looking after his own interest it is the way it as been carried out The Question how can the RFL register a player at two different clubs they are suposed to have sat at the meeting with the new owners through the OK saga So i would believe they have cleared all the registration of players still at our club or can they also walk away They knew what the position was with the players and i assume there contracts with the club this opens a big door in regard to any players contract bartsbull
  • Score: 2

12:32pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Eddiethepom says...

So many employmen law experts on here....the Law Society could use it as ther online blog!!

IF the Bulls are serious about the legal action I would like to think that they have been advised by professionals who know eactly what they are doing. Having said that, they could have saved all the hassle of doing so and just asked the "experts" on here.

At the end of the day, Carvell has gone. If hes doesnt want to be at the Bulls then fine, on your way.

I think the thing that everyone in RL needs to consider is that instances such as this and Koppy are setting precedents that the game as a whole does not need.
So many employmen law experts on here....the Law Society could use it as ther online blog!! IF the Bulls are serious about the legal action I would like to think that they have been advised by professionals who know eactly what they are doing. Having said that, they could have saved all the hassle of doing so and just asked the "experts" on here. At the end of the day, Carvell has gone. If hes doesnt want to be at the Bulls then fine, on your way. I think the thing that everyone in RL needs to consider is that instances such as this and Koppy are setting precedents that the game as a whole does not need. Eddiethepom
  • Score: 6

1:18pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Eddiethepom wrote:
So many employmen law experts on here....the Law Society could use it as ther online blog!!

IF the Bulls are serious about the legal action I would like to think that they have been advised by professionals who know eactly what they are doing. Having said that, they could have saved all the hassle of doing so and just asked the "experts" on here.

At the end of the day, Carvell has gone. If hes doesnt want to be at the Bulls then fine, on your way.

I think the thing that everyone in RL needs to consider is that instances such as this and Koppy are setting precedents that the game as a whole does not need.
The best way to avoid this precedent is not to keep going into admin. Thats when the issue raises it's head.
[quote][p][bold]Eddiethepom[/bold] wrote: So many employmen law experts on here....the Law Society could use it as ther online blog!! IF the Bulls are serious about the legal action I would like to think that they have been advised by professionals who know eactly what they are doing. Having said that, they could have saved all the hassle of doing so and just asked the "experts" on here. At the end of the day, Carvell has gone. If hes doesnt want to be at the Bulls then fine, on your way. I think the thing that everyone in RL needs to consider is that instances such as this and Koppy are setting precedents that the game as a whole does not need.[/p][/quote]The best way to avoid this precedent is not to keep going into admin. Thats when the issue raises it's head. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Thu 13 Feb 14

smithm10 says...

Carvel agent states he cancelled his contract when Bulls went into administration on the 31st January with OK Bulls. This means he no longer is a Bulls player. How come then on the Saturday morning on the 1st February he turned up at the Belong photo shoot in full Bulls gear with the rest of the 1st team squad. On Sunday the 2nd February the day of our friendly with Castleford he was also present in full Bulls gear he was in the Coral Stand mingling with supporters & having his photo taken. I was present on both occasions. If he resigned as stated on the 31st January 2014 why was he present at these two events still portraying to be a Bulls player.
Carvel agent states he cancelled his contract when Bulls went into administration on the 31st January with OK Bulls. This means he no longer is a Bulls player. How come then on the Saturday morning on the 1st February he turned up at the Belong photo shoot in full Bulls gear with the rest of the 1st team squad. On Sunday the 2nd February the day of our friendly with Castleford he was also present in full Bulls gear he was in the Coral Stand mingling with supporters & having his photo taken. I was present on both occasions. If he resigned as stated on the 31st January 2014 why was he present at these two events still portraying to be a Bulls player. smithm10
  • Score: 7

3:59pm Thu 13 Feb 14

spanglishbull.uk says...

Come on legal eagles.Answer Smithm 10
Come on legal eagles.Answer Smithm 10 spanglishbull.uk
  • Score: 1

4:45pm Thu 13 Feb 14

portugalbull says...

Add to smithm 10 comment, "he also still has Bulls sponsors car"
When I changed jobs and retired the company car had to be handed back with resignation.
Add to smithm 10 comment, "he also still has Bulls sponsors car" When I changed jobs and retired the company car had to be handed back with resignation. portugalbull
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Pablo says...

portugalbull wrote:
Add to smithm 10 comment, "he also still has Bulls sponsors car"
When I changed jobs and retired the company car had to be handed back with resignation.
I once enjoyed the use of a Company car and, on leaving was owed money from my Employer. My solicitor advised me not to hand in my car as "possession is nine tenths of the law". The car was used as a lever to secure the money I was owed.

There may well be more to the Carvell affair, than we are aware of. Perhaps, one day, we'll find out the full facts.
[quote][p][bold]portugalbull[/bold] wrote: Add to smithm 10 comment, "he also still has Bulls sponsors car" When I changed jobs and retired the company car had to be handed back with resignation.[/p][/quote]I once enjoyed the use of a Company car and, on leaving was owed money from my Employer. My solicitor advised me not to hand in my car as "possession is nine tenths of the law". The car was used as a lever to secure the money I was owed. There may well be more to the Carvell affair, than we are aware of. Perhaps, one day, we'll find out the full facts. Pablo
  • Score: 2

6:44pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Arhmen Noleg says...

StevieLad wrote:
Arhmen Noleg wrote:
fedupwiththeBS wrote:
here we go again, lets slag off a man who has done the right thing by his family by finding himself an employer that can guarantee to pay his wages each month.

Please lets not stoop to the levels that certain people did on here and other social network sites when Koppy left. GC would not have made this decision lightly as he was keen to play for the Club.

The parties bidding for the Club will have nothing left to bid for at this rate.

The fact that all Club online financial transactions are going through a Bedz R Us paypal account should be ringing alarm bells.
Hope they have a good accountant up there.
Web site states Andrew Calverts firm too providing pay portal.
I dont think Carvell took his decision lightly.
But Hull should cough up some compo.

The legal argument floated is so amateurish it worries me these three Amgos are completely out of their depth.
His contract was with his employer OK Bulls Ltd.
God knows who employs them all right now but in any event they only have authority for 28 days from 31.1.2014.
And all the brass gong through someone else?
Maybe the banks have (all) given up on the job and wont even take money now.
Yes your right.A truly frightening development
Do you think the legal threat might just be posturing, to a) keep the fans on side and b) warn off other players from leaving
I am sure the new board are unhappy that OK Bulls Ltd paid him for December and January.
I doubt very much the players knew on 31.1 that the club came in and out of admin in 2 hours and were probably unaware even by the time of Cas match of what was going on.

The rules of TUPE and giving notice on the day, would not if that was the case be strictly enforceable.
I think it is an attempt to secure compensation from Hull ulimtely.

But given the flawed nonsense that his contract was with "Bradford Bulls" a trading name not a legal entity employing him, I'm not even sure if the current temporary owners know what their doiing either.

It does annoy that he RFL through through their own rules protect players contracts in insolvency 100 per cent whilst everyone else can whistle but when stuations as this occur they remain silent.
There may be he problem.This is relatively new legislation.
HMRC tried unsuccessfully to challenge and the courts found in the favour of the football games ruling body.
For my mind the players should not be in anymore priviledged position in iinsolvency than say Mrs Smith who perhaps had made the tea for 40 years.
If OK had not taken on ALL the players cotracts at 1.9.2012 I guess the RFL would have had plenty t say.
Here they do not appear to want to get involved.
Interesting the reports the players were asked to take 20 per cent cuts to their contacts a pretty sgnficant variation.
The best resolve expediently would be for Hull to sort it quickly by paying Bulls an amount.
Maybe their skint aswell Sure I read that somewhere when Adam Pearson took over a couple of years ago.
The game is a mess i"m afraid,unreal business where the true long term loser is the most important stakeholder the long term customer the fan.

I can feel all the tension fans are fearing right now and they will be the ones still around when all these temporarys are long forgotten.

Which is why I keep floating the fans trust model in the absence of a Marwan or Ken.
The temporary lot have so far failed to engage with the fans for Share investment.
The RFL hold all the cards.
They cannot continually prop up the entire mismanagement in running the clubs.How any in trouble?Most or all?
Maybe only those with a Ken or Marwan will survive.
But how long before Marwan is fed up if say only 2 to 4 thousand turn up to see his multi million pound investment?
I don't blame Carvell if he was not paid on time at Xmas.
And this lot have only a 28 day super license so Carvell on that alone is justified.
Dreadfull mess.
he man on the Clapham Omnibus says if this goes to court the legal fees will outweigh any award.
So only they will win.As always.

But no lawyer ever tells you the risk at outset properly.

The game of poker looks like its starting to crack.
Bring on the Cavalry.
There are indeed people on this site like you Bacon Bantham.and Bierley Boy and TVOR appear to have understanding of the law.

Shall we all consortium to make a bid?
Trouble is its one big black hole with never enough income to pay the way/
Even in the heady days of 2003 and 2004 which saw 2 year losses of over £800k in total.
When 15000 were turning up.
!980 last week.
Great support for a club in the mire.
Can anyone blame Cavell really when he sees all this
[quote][p][bold]StevieLad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arhmen Noleg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwiththeBS[/bold] wrote: here we go again, lets slag off a man who has done the right thing by his family by finding himself an employer that can guarantee to pay his wages each month. Please lets not stoop to the levels that certain people did on here and other social network sites when Koppy left. GC would not have made this decision lightly as he was keen to play for the Club. The parties bidding for the Club will have nothing left to bid for at this rate. The fact that all Club online financial transactions are going through a Bedz R Us paypal account should be ringing alarm bells.[/p][/quote]Hope they have a good accountant up there. Web site states Andrew Calverts firm too providing pay portal. I dont think Carvell took his decision lightly. But Hull should cough up some compo. The legal argument floated is so amateurish it worries me these three Amgos are completely out of their depth. His contract was with his employer OK Bulls Ltd. God knows who employs them all right now but in any event they only have authority for 28 days from 31.1.2014. And all the brass gong through someone else? Maybe the banks have (all) given up on the job and wont even take money now. Yes your right.A truly frightening development[/p][/quote]Do you think the legal threat might just be posturing, to a) keep the fans on side and b) warn off other players from leaving[/p][/quote]I am sure the new board are unhappy that OK Bulls Ltd paid him for December and January. I doubt very much the players knew on 31.1 that the club came in and out of admin in 2 hours and were probably unaware even by the time of Cas match of what was going on. The rules of TUPE and giving notice on the day, would not if that was the case be strictly enforceable. I think it is an attempt to secure compensation from Hull ulimtely. But given the flawed nonsense that his contract was with "Bradford Bulls" a trading name not a legal entity employing him, I'm not even sure if the current temporary owners know what their doiing either. It does annoy that he RFL through through their own rules protect players contracts in insolvency 100 per cent whilst everyone else can whistle but when stuations as this occur they remain silent. There may be he problem.This is relatively new legislation. HMRC tried unsuccessfully to challenge and the courts found in the favour of the football games ruling body. For my mind the players should not be in anymore priviledged position in iinsolvency than say Mrs Smith who perhaps had made the tea for 40 years. If OK had not taken on ALL the players cotracts at 1.9.2012 I guess the RFL would have had plenty t say. Here they do not appear to want to get involved. Interesting the reports the players were asked to take 20 per cent cuts to their contacts a pretty sgnficant variation. The best resolve expediently would be for Hull to sort it quickly by paying Bulls an amount. Maybe their skint aswell Sure I read that somewhere when Adam Pearson took over a couple of years ago. The game is a mess i"m afraid,unreal business where the true long term loser is the most important stakeholder the long term customer the fan. I can feel all the tension fans are fearing right now and they will be the ones still around when all these temporarys are long forgotten. Which is why I keep floating the fans trust model in the absence of a Marwan or Ken. The temporary lot have so far failed to engage with the fans for Share investment. The RFL hold all the cards. They cannot continually prop up the entire mismanagement in running the clubs.How any in trouble?Most or all? Maybe only those with a Ken or Marwan will survive. But how long before Marwan is fed up if say only 2 to 4 thousand turn up to see his multi million pound investment? I don't blame Carvell if he was not paid on time at Xmas. And this lot have only a 28 day super license so Carvell on that alone is justified. Dreadfull mess. he man on the Clapham Omnibus says if this goes to court the legal fees will outweigh any award. So only they will win.As always. But no lawyer ever tells you the risk at outset properly. The game of poker looks like its starting to crack. Bring on the Cavalry. There are indeed people on this site like you Bacon Bantham.and Bierley Boy and TVOR appear to have understanding of the law. Shall we all consortium to make a bid? Trouble is its one big black hole with never enough income to pay the way/ Even in the heady days of 2003 and 2004 which saw 2 year losses of over £800k in total. When 15000 were turning up. !980 last week. Great support for a club in the mire. Can anyone blame Cavell really when he sees all this Arhmen Noleg
  • Score: 3

6:49pm Thu 13 Feb 14

raisemeup says...

portugalbull wrote:
Add to smithm 10 comment, "he also still has Bulls sponsors car"
When I changed jobs and retired the company car had to be handed back with resignation.
Quite right the company car is a legal part of a contract of employment: and part of the package being subject to vat and or tax.
So if GC still has this car or even if he drove it after the alleged resignation took place then in effect he is still employed by the Bulls. If he isn't hen he is deemed to have "removed company property without consent" and the insurance is also null and void, So he would be driving whilst uninsured, unless he is still employed by the Bulls?
Unless some other deal is in place that is not known by anyone except the parties concerned.
[quote][p][bold]portugalbull[/bold] wrote: Add to smithm 10 comment, "he also still has Bulls sponsors car" When I changed jobs and retired the company car had to be handed back with resignation.[/p][/quote]Quite right the company car is a legal part of a contract of employment: and part of the package being subject to vat and or tax. So if GC still has this car or even if he drove it after the alleged resignation took place then in effect he is still employed by the Bulls. If he isn't hen he is deemed to have "removed company property without consent" and the insurance is also null and void, So he would be driving whilst uninsured, unless he is still employed by the Bulls? Unless some other deal is in place that is not known by anyone except the parties concerned. raisemeup
  • Score: 1

7:02pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Pablo says...

raisemeup wrote:
portugalbull wrote:
Add to smithm 10 comment, "he also still has Bulls sponsors car"
When I changed jobs and retired the company car had to be handed back with resignation.
Quite right the company car is a legal part of a contract of employment: and part of the package being subject to vat and or tax.
So if GC still has this car or even if he drove it after the alleged resignation took place then in effect he is still employed by the Bulls. If he isn't hen he is deemed to have "removed company property without consent" and the insurance is also null and void, So he would be driving whilst uninsured, unless he is still employed by the Bulls?
Unless some other deal is in place that is not known by anyone except the parties concerned.
Hi raisemeup. My advice was to keep the car in my garage. I was, in fact, immediately employed by another Company and provided with another Company car by them!

I can't believe any reasonable person would refuse to hand back a car, without good reason.

Given the goings on at Odsal, nothing surprises me anymore!
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portugalbull[/bold] wrote: Add to smithm 10 comment, "he also still has Bulls sponsors car" When I changed jobs and retired the company car had to be handed back with resignation.[/p][/quote]Quite right the company car is a legal part of a contract of employment: and part of the package being subject to vat and or tax. So if GC still has this car or even if he drove it after the alleged resignation took place then in effect he is still employed by the Bulls. If he isn't hen he is deemed to have "removed company property without consent" and the insurance is also null and void, So he would be driving whilst uninsured, unless he is still employed by the Bulls? Unless some other deal is in place that is not known by anyone except the parties concerned.[/p][/quote]Hi raisemeup. My advice was to keep the car in my garage. I was, in fact, immediately employed by another Company and provided with another Company car by them! I can't believe any reasonable person would refuse to hand back a car, without good reason. Given the goings on at Odsal, nothing surprises me anymore! Pablo
  • Score: 3

7:20pm Thu 13 Feb 14

raisemeup says...

To put this into context, I would think this is the only thing the Bulls can do under the circumstances:
Firstly they thought that the RFL were sympathetic to a decision that had to be taken to save the club when the deal agreed on the 9th Jan, was reneged on?

If you see the report on the 31st jan. and take particular note of the comment from the RFL:
Quote

The club was then bought by Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd, a company run by those same directors, who insist the club's Super League status is secure.
Talks are now planned with the Rugby Football League as the Bulls aim to avoid a possible points deduction over the administration.
An RFL spokesman said:
"The club has kept us informed all along. It is disappointing that the agreement we reached on January 9 has not been implemented and that the club has been left with no alternative but to take this course of action.
"We will be meeting with the current management team early next week to listen to their plans and confirm the position of the club."
What were they (Bulls)supposed to think after that statement?

Then on the same day: This appeared> Quote>
The RFL understands that the Bradford Bulls have today been taken into, and out of administration. This is a breach of the RFL byelaws and therefore the Board will seek further clarification in the matter before considering the appropriate course of action.

Presumably a different spokesperson? Who didn't know anything about the situation before it happened.

So Mr TVOR perhaps you may moderate your posts to something more sensible, and realise that the Bulls are once again between a rock and a hard place.
It is apparent that Carvell is now persona non grata, But the Hull club, the Player and the RFL owe them something. If Hull agreed to pay a transfer fee for a Player that has been invested in by a fellow SL club, the problem would be solved and if the RFL behaved responsibly in the terms of what they said initially. They would have intervened to agree fairness.
Quite frankly this brings the point of a contract being worthless into the minds eye.
To put this into context, I would think this is the only thing the Bulls can do under the circumstances: Firstly they thought that the RFL were sympathetic to a decision that had to be taken to save the club when the deal agreed on the 9th Jan, was reneged on? If you see the report on the 31st jan. and take particular note of the comment from the RFL: Quote The club was then bought by Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd, a company run by those same directors, who insist the club's Super League status is secure. Talks are now planned with the Rugby Football League as the Bulls aim to avoid a possible points deduction over the administration. An RFL spokesman said: "The club has kept us informed all along. It is disappointing that the agreement we reached on January 9 has not been implemented and that the club has been left with no alternative but to take this course of action. "We will be meeting with the current management team early next week to listen to their plans and confirm the position of the club." What were they (Bulls)supposed to think after that statement? Then on the same day: This appeared> Quote> The RFL understands that the Bradford Bulls have today been taken into, and out of administration. This is a breach of the RFL byelaws and therefore the Board will seek further clarification in the matter before considering the appropriate course of action. Presumably a different spokesperson? Who didn't know anything about the situation before it happened. So Mr TVOR perhaps you may moderate your posts to something more sensible, and realise that the Bulls are once again between a rock and a hard place. It is apparent that Carvell is now persona non grata, But the Hull club, the Player and the RFL owe them something. If Hull agreed to pay a transfer fee for a Player that has been invested in by a fellow SL club, the problem would be solved and if the RFL behaved responsibly in the terms of what they said initially. They would have intervened to agree fairness. Quite frankly this brings the point of a contract being worthless into the minds eye. raisemeup
  • Score: 1

8:03pm Thu 13 Feb 14

northern pig says...

Just read the online sports page from todays Hull Daily Mail. A quote from Lee Radord."Now the protracted saga is over,i am looking forward to working with Gareth.a player i can trust" So that tells me that as far as Hull FC are concerned. the matter is closed! The plot thickens!!! Are the Hull clubs legal eagles, More savvy than ours?
Just read the online sports page from todays Hull Daily Mail. A quote from Lee Radord."Now the protracted saga is over,i am looking forward to working with Gareth.a player i can trust" So that tells me that as far as Hull FC are concerned. the matter is closed! The plot thickens!!! Are the Hull clubs legal eagles, More savvy than ours? northern pig
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Arhmen Noleg says...

Pablo wrote:
raisemeup wrote:
portugalbull wrote:
Add to smithm 10 comment, "he also still has Bulls sponsors car"
When I changed jobs and retired the company car had to be handed back with resignation.
Quite right the company car is a legal part of a contract of employment: and part of the package being subject to vat and or tax.
So if GC still has this car or even if he drove it after the alleged resignation took place then in effect he is still employed by the Bulls. If he isn't hen he is deemed to have "removed company property without consent" and the insurance is also null and void, So he would be driving whilst uninsured, unless he is still employed by the Bulls?
Unless some other deal is in place that is not known by anyone except the parties concerned.
Hi raisemeup. My advice was to keep the car in my garage. I was, in fact, immediately employed by another Company and provided with another Company car by them!

I can't believe any reasonable person would refuse to hand back a car, without good reason.

Given the goings on at Odsal, nothing surprises me anymore!
Me too.
Who owns the car?Where is it now?How can all the paperwork to assign it over to BB2014 ltd have been done in 2 hours?
Have the keys been lost?
Has Omar repossessed it?
Is it in a lock up been resprayed with Hull colours?
Do Ok Bulls Ltd owe Hull for anything?
Will BB2014 ltd be the ones to take the club beyond 28.2.2014
Are any of the new directors ill yet?
Have they any money to pay Februarys wages?
So many unknowns.

The legal argument I have seen put out (and what is all that about potentially libelling Carvell by putting that Bull out on the official website)is as amateurish as it gets.

First a gaff that PR states "no points deduction,super league status guaranteed" now this.

I have lost all confidence already in the business acumen and understanding of this lot.
With about 5 bob between them.

Bring on the cavalry.
Despair not.Just yet.
Carvell has maintained a dignified silence in a messy and complicated affair where he will no doubt have been bricking it with a disabled child and family to support.
The rest of the players must be too.
But the insolvency announcement came so late they had nowhere to go and simply have to go long with the positive spin.

Its not good I can assure everyone that.Dig deep please fans.
The club needs you more than ever.
It is now so tainted with threats of legal action everywhere that a fans trust and starting again may prove the only way forward.
Sad Sad Sad.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portugalbull[/bold] wrote: Add to smithm 10 comment, "he also still has Bulls sponsors car" When I changed jobs and retired the company car had to be handed back with resignation.[/p][/quote]Quite right the company car is a legal part of a contract of employment: and part of the package being subject to vat and or tax. So if GC still has this car or even if he drove it after the alleged resignation took place then in effect he is still employed by the Bulls. If he isn't hen he is deemed to have "removed company property without consent" and the insurance is also null and void, So he would be driving whilst uninsured, unless he is still employed by the Bulls? Unless some other deal is in place that is not known by anyone except the parties concerned.[/p][/quote]Hi raisemeup. My advice was to keep the car in my garage. I was, in fact, immediately employed by another Company and provided with another Company car by them! I can't believe any reasonable person would refuse to hand back a car, without good reason. Given the goings on at Odsal, nothing surprises me anymore![/p][/quote]Me too. Who owns the car?Where is it now?How can all the paperwork to assign it over to BB2014 ltd have been done in 2 hours? Have the keys been lost? Has Omar repossessed it? Is it in a lock up been resprayed with Hull colours? Do Ok Bulls Ltd owe Hull for anything? Will BB2014 ltd be the ones to take the club beyond 28.2.2014 Are any of the new directors ill yet? Have they any money to pay Februarys wages? So many unknowns. The legal argument I have seen put out (and what is all that about potentially libelling Carvell by putting that Bull out on the official website)is as amateurish as it gets. First a gaff that PR states "no points deduction,super league status guaranteed" now this. I have lost all confidence already in the business acumen and understanding of this lot. With about 5 bob between them. Bring on the cavalry. Despair not.Just yet. Carvell has maintained a dignified silence in a messy and complicated affair where he will no doubt have been bricking it with a disabled child and family to support. The rest of the players must be too. But the insolvency announcement came so late they had nowhere to go and simply have to go long with the positive spin. Its not good I can assure everyone that.Dig deep please fans. The club needs you more than ever. It is now so tainted with threats of legal action everywhere that a fans trust and starting again may prove the only way forward. Sad Sad Sad. Arhmen Noleg
  • Score: 1

9:53pm Thu 13 Feb 14

Arhmen Noleg says...

raisemeup wrote:
To put this into context, I would think this is the only thing the Bulls can do under the circumstances:
Firstly they thought that the RFL were sympathetic to a decision that had to be taken to save the club when the deal agreed on the 9th Jan, was reneged on?

If you see the report on the 31st jan. and take particular note of the comment from the RFL:
Quote

The club was then bought by Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd, a company run by those same directors, who insist the club's Super League status is secure.
Talks are now planned with the Rugby Football League as the Bulls aim to avoid a possible points deduction over the administration.
An RFL spokesman said:
"The club has kept us informed all along. It is disappointing that the agreement we reached on January 9 has not been implemented and that the club has been left with no alternative but to take this course of action.
"We will be meeting with the current management team early next week to listen to their plans and confirm the position of the club."
What were they (Bulls)supposed to think after that statement?

Then on the same day: This appeared> Quote>
The RFL understands that the Bradford Bulls have today been taken into, and out of administration. This is a breach of the RFL byelaws and therefore the Board will seek further clarification in the matter before considering the appropriate course of action.

Presumably a different spokesperson? Who didn't know anything about the situation before it happened.

So Mr TVOR perhaps you may moderate your posts to something more sensible, and realise that the Bulls are once again between a rock and a hard place.
It is apparent that Carvell is now persona non grata, But the Hull club, the Player and the RFL owe them something. If Hull agreed to pay a transfer fee for a Player that has been invested in by a fellow SL club, the problem would be solved and if the RFL behaved responsibly in the terms of what they said initially. They would have intervened to agree fairness.
Quite frankly this brings the point of a contract being worthless into the minds eye.
And don't forget the players are between a rock and hard place aswell.
Lied to consistently since last summer that all is well,about 4 changes in personnell trying to direct the crisis and circus since September,more in and outs than the hokey cokey throws up with a final admisisson 3 weeks before the season starts that is hopeless.Untenable.F
lat broke.Nothing left.
Except a 28 day stay of execution.
To see what can be done.

I feel for the fans.
I feel for the players their kids and families.
I feel for all those sacked already ad those that will face it.

For Gerry Sutcliffe and Omar Khan.
I feel like I"d better shut up.

What a mess
[quote][p][bold]raisemeup[/bold] wrote: To put this into context, I would think this is the only thing the Bulls can do under the circumstances: Firstly they thought that the RFL were sympathetic to a decision that had to be taken to save the club when the deal agreed on the 9th Jan, was reneged on? If you see the report on the 31st jan. and take particular note of the comment from the RFL: Quote The club was then bought by Bradford Bulls 2014 Ltd, a company run by those same directors, who insist the club's Super League status is secure. Talks are now planned with the Rugby Football League as the Bulls aim to avoid a possible points deduction over the administration. An RFL spokesman said: "The club has kept us informed all along. It is disappointing that the agreement we reached on January 9 has not been implemented and that the club has been left with no alternative but to take this course of action. "We will be meeting with the current management team early next week to listen to their plans and confirm the position of the club." What were they (Bulls)supposed to think after that statement? Then on the same day: This appeared> Quote> The RFL understands that the Bradford Bulls have today been taken into, and out of administration. This is a breach of the RFL byelaws and therefore the Board will seek further clarification in the matter before considering the appropriate course of action. Presumably a different spokesperson? Who didn't know anything about the situation before it happened. So Mr TVOR perhaps you may moderate your posts to something more sensible, and realise that the Bulls are once again between a rock and a hard place. It is apparent that Carvell is now persona non grata, But the Hull club, the Player and the RFL owe them something. If Hull agreed to pay a transfer fee for a Player that has been invested in by a fellow SL club, the problem would be solved and if the RFL behaved responsibly in the terms of what they said initially. They would have intervened to agree fairness. Quite frankly this brings the point of a contract being worthless into the minds eye.[/p][/quote]And don't forget the players are between a rock and hard place aswell. Lied to consistently since last summer that all is well,about 4 changes in personnell trying to direct the crisis and circus since September,more in and outs than the hokey cokey throws up with a final admisisson 3 weeks before the season starts that is hopeless.Untenable.F lat broke.Nothing left. Except a 28 day stay of execution. To see what can be done. I feel for the fans. I feel for the players their kids and families. I feel for all those sacked already ad those that will face it. For Gerry Sutcliffe and Omar Khan. I feel like I"d better shut up. What a mess Arhmen Noleg
  • Score: 2

10:24am Fri 14 Feb 14

fedupwiththeBS says...

Another player is leaving the Club today....it is now official we are F***ed.
Another player is leaving the Club today....it is now official we are F***ed. fedupwiththeBS
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree