Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:45 am  

deslawson wrote:

Was jason crookes in it,assault of the earth,so to speak?

The end is nigh.

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:01 am  

Oh great dipstick Deslawson is back on not sure I can stand all the intelligent posts we will get now.

HDM must be slow today

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:34 am  

Punos wrote:

Oh great dipstick Deslawson is back on not sure I can stand all the intelligent posts we will get now.

HDM must be slow today

I informed you all at 1145 yesterday carvell was in the 19 man squad, and got shouted down for that ! Its a tough school.

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:37 am  

Gerrum on side ref wrote:

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.

Having just done some reading up on this it sounds like that is right on the TUPE front.

Reading the statement it sounds like Bradford are claiming he was contracted to the club rather than the parent company of OK Bulls but if the parent company went into administration then that means any companies they own also went into administration surely?

[Kosh]

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:41 am  

Doc Brown wrote:

Having just done some reading up on this it sounds like that is right on the TUPE front.

Reading the statement it sounds like Bradford are claiming he was contracted to the club rather than the parent company of OK Bulls but if the parent company went into administration then that means any companies they own also went into administration surely?

Not exactly. The Bulls club is not a legal entity and cannot go into administration. It's effectively a brand/product owned by OK Bulls and now owned by the newco. As such, their assertion that Carvell had a contract with the Bulls club and not the parent company is patent nonsense.

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:48 am  

Kosh wrote:

Not exactly. The Bulls club is not a legal entity and cannot go into administration. It's effectively a brand/product owned by OK Bulls and now owned by the newco. As such, their assertion that Carvell had a contract with the Bulls club and not the parent company is patent nonsense.

Thanks for clearing that up for me Kosh. Can't see a case for Bradford here myself.

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:29 am  

Just seen an article that I saw yesterday that looks as if it's been reworded to say they're suing carvell whereas yesterday they were suing Hull FC. Seems like a total mess from the Bradford end and either way they can't have much of a case.

[Kosh]

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:32 am  

the cal train wrote:

Just seen an article that I saw yesterday that looks as if it's been reworded to say they're suing carvell whereas yesterday they were suing Hull FC. Seems like a total mess from the Bradford end and either way they can't have much of a case.

They have no case against FC and never did, much like we never had a case against Rovers when Cooke left. I very much doubt that they can build a convincing case against Carvell either - or at least not one that makes any commercial sense to pursue.

It's just bluster. Much like our threats following the Cooke fiasco.

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:10 am  

the cal train wrote:

Just seen an article that I saw yesterday that looks as if it's been reworded to say they're suing carvell whereas yesterday they were suing Hull FC. Seems like a total mess from the Bradford end and either way they can't have much of a case.

They need to get some proper lawyers. Their so-called "HR experts" aren't even solicitors. They may be ok for dealing with employment tribunal claims but they can't handle this sort of litigation.

I'm sure that HUll FC have nothing much to worry about and doubt Carvell has either.

Re: gareth carvell : Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:21 am  

It's just noise from Bradford, neither Carvell nor FC have any case to answer.