Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:46 pm  

Bull Mania wrote: Bulls statement. Looks like this could get messy... http://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"......

Bull Mania wrote: Bulls statement. Looks like this could get messy... http://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"......

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:47 pm  

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.

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:55 pm  

easthull fc fan wrote:

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).

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:57 pm  

“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.“

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.

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:04 pm  

Bal wrote:

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).

That worked well in Cookie's case

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:10 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

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.
.

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:22 pm  

*1865* wrote:

:lol:

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.

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.

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:27 pm  

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.

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:40 pm  

*1865* wrote:

:lol:

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.

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?

Re: gareth carvell : Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:41 pm  

Bal wrote:

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.

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......