Can he just get gone then please? He has messed us about enough. Let's try and get sorted for the new season with people who want to be here.

In situations such as this administration where there has been no consultation ,ALL players and staff have the right to refuse to be transferred to the new company IF they give notice at the time of the transfer. A sports lawyer is quoted in the T&A stating that refusal should have been made that day-- personally I think a court would allow a few days. He speculates that Carvell will probably go ( as he has probably taken that option) but there will be compensation due. He says it is unlikely anyone would do this without an alternative job in place. Hence possible breach of the tapping up" RFL regulations. We will see.
The other right a transferred employee has under the legislation is where the new contract makes " substantial changes to working conditions".
Regarding your claims about non payment of wages and "at least 4 others wanting out" , to be polite I have severe doubts these claims are anything more than wild rumour. Why only " some" players? Why has there been no suggestion of unpaid wages from any interested party , in particular the players,players agents the union ,the RFL?

Disgraceful, yet another tapping up, slimey agent affair

As for Carvell himself, to walk away after all the crap he's come out with - Get gone and try not to roll your ankle in the first game for your new club.

If we end up with Pitts and Mexico instead of Carvell so be it.Disappointing but if he don't want to be here think we should say au revoir and move on

Poor comment

If we are to lose Carvell, which is highly likely looking at today's report in the T & A, can we have it done ASAP!

So I expect the RFL to come down hard on the respective parties for the illegal approaches. Just like they did over the Kopout affair. Oh hang on....

Yet both could have been avoided if your club didn't bite off more than it could chew.



People in glass houses........

No it's not really,it's pretty accurate

Take it you didn't read about Carvell last week saying he wanted to finish his career at the Bulls and cut his teeth coaching at the Bulls

If there's a TUPE situation then a person can terminate their contract provided they give notice at the time of the TUPE. No notice, no go. As for Hull being up to the cap and releasing someone, doesn't any payment made to that person count against the cap? I mean, if you're not paying someone off, the only reason they can cancel the contract is if they've failed in their rehab/training like Tupou did with us.

Was that before or after the club went into administration? To wish injury on a player is very very poor!

I agree with you on the injury bit,to be honest I wasn't including that bit in my response

If a player is released before playing an SL relevant game then the payment doesn't count on the cap. Or the payment may have been specified in the original contract terms, in which case it would have already been factored into the player's cap value for previous seasons.

Basically there are various ways to pay off a player without impacting the cap.

People in glasses houses that will be Giants then!!

Tell me who we have ever illegally tapped up and I will withdraw. I don't recall any. This is twice now that other teams have done it to us and the RFL do not give a monkey's.

Maybe I will write them a letter....

bit hard to tap up a player who has just had his contract anulled by his previous employer by them ceasing to exist and before he has actually agreed to be tupe'd over to the newco.......he is a free agent in the time space between, also he has a limted amount of time after a tupe'd situation if he was not consulted/kept aware of the ongoing situation.

Will you also be expecting them to come down hard on those who go into administration again?

Read the T&A today, gives a very good explanation from a sports lawyer how it works

Erm directly from Hull? Radford and vaikona were not straight forward deals were they?

Solomona? the whole we will get him for free because they are relegated never happened did it?

Iestyn? some might say that was a form of tapping up ?

These are just a couple of examples off top of my head, we are by far not innocent of all this, we are just upset because we are very vulnerable to it at moment. what goes around comes around.
As for Tupe - like has been said he can cancel contract but as proven previously, we will be backed up when attempts to transfer his registration are made. You will get him but it wont be for nothing.

Whatever Mcdonnell has been paid off will still count against cap, I dont believe Half of mcdonnells wage and pitts would cover losing a decent two year deal for a year?

might kill any potential for a coaching career simply by his indecisiveness. Situation on leaving hull, situation now when he is coaching under 19's - may help himself short term but this could bite him. Interviewer would you describe yourself as loyal? (google says different)

I would have thought recent events would have shown that whatever he intended many of OK's statements were not correct. I suspect that was due to niaivity rather than deceit but there you go.

When a club is in Administration and a Player's Agent approaches the Administrator for consent to speak to other clubs to protect his Client's interests the Administrator is obliged to give that consent. That happened for far more players than Craig Kopczak, many Bradford players quite legitimately had potential deals lined up. There were no illegal approaches. When the previous Bradford incarnation tried to Tupe players across to OK Bulls Craig Kopczak declined. You may not like that, but that is what happened.

Ok reported Giants to RFL who were obliged to investigate, in doing so Huddersfield Giants produced a copy of written consent to speak to Craig Kopczak. The RFL could not find anything other than they were entitled to sign the player but that Bradford were entitled to compensation to transfer the registration.

Ok no doubt looked a bit silly in RFL eyes but I suspect he was not very well advised. Ok later resurrected his claims after the Mason affair, that seems more to do with saying the right thing to the Bulls fanbase.

The Giants royally shafted Keith Mason and were rightly made to compensate him properly, that was shameful but did not in any way make discussing a future contract with Craig Kopczak an illegal approach.

Gareth Carvell is also entitled to decline TUPE transfer, CK has given a precedent, if GC wants to leave he can, do Bulls 2014 even have a SL licence? i am sure they will have the transfer endorsed, but that hasn't happened yet.

I do have sympathy with the supporters of Bradford Bulls, but you have to understand the bad guys are not Huddersfield Giants, Hull FC or Wakefield Trinity Wildcats. Those responsible for the angst you are being put through are the previous custodians of your club: Caisley, Hood, Whitcutt & OK amongst them, many astonishing levels of incompetance have been shown.

I hope for your sake the new lot are better.

Indeed. They could hardly be much worse...?

Excellent post, GD.

Although the usual suspects on the Wakey forum are stupidly doing their level best to give people every reason to view them as bad guys too.

Quote ="domthebull" Whatever Mcdonnell has been paid off will still count against cap, I dont believe Half of mcdonnells wage and pitts would cover losing a decent two year deal for a year? '" I was under the assumption that if they never played they would be exempt from the cap..... however having read your point and nipping to check the rules and prove you woefully wrong, i hit a snag. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... section=E1 E1:3:1 Quote A Club’s “Players” are the 25 Players registered with the Club and eligible to play in the Super League who have the highest Salary Cap Values at the time in question, whether or not they have played for the Club in a Salary Cap Relevant Match in the Salary Cap Year to that date, in addition to all other players at the club who will or do play in a Salary Cap Relevant Match. '" Also if this was allowed, it could/would mean a very simple way to work around the cap.

Quote ="domthebull" Whatever Mcdonnell has been paid off will still count against cap, I dont believe Half of mcdonnells wage and pitts would cover losing a decent two year deal for a year? '" I was under the assumption that if they never played they would be exempt from the cap..... however having read your point and nipping to check the rules and prove you woefully wrong, i hit a snag. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... section=E1 E1:3:1 Quote A Club’s “Players” are the 25 Players registered with the Club and eligible to play in the Super League who have the highest Salary Cap Values at the time in question, whether or not they have played for the Club in a Salary Cap Relevant Match in the Salary Cap Year to that date, in addition to all other players at the club who will or do play in a Salary Cap Relevant Match. '" Also if this was allowed, it could/would mean a very simple way to work around the cap.

I also agree with GD

The RFL are nothing if not inconsistent. You might be surprised by what they might and might not 'back up' - as we've found to our cost before. And in any case, paying a fee for Carvell wouldn't be an issue.


Not necessarily. Have a read of the cap rules - there are plenty of ways to get around this.

Quote ="hullbg"I was under the assumption that if they never played they would be exempt from the cap..... however having read your point and nipping to check the rules and prove you woefully wrong, i hit a snag. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... section=E1 E1:3:1 Also if this was allowed, it could/would mean a very simple way to work around the cap.'" That just defines 'players'. You need to look at the parts which calculate cap value, and the parts dealing with player contracts. There are ways and means to offset part or all of the cap value when a player leaves, depending on when, why, and how it happens. In fact there are now so many clauses and exemptions to the cap it basically boils down to whatever you can convince the cap panel to allow.

Quote ="hullbg"I was under the assumption that if they never played they would be exempt from the cap..... however having read your point and nipping to check the rules and prove you woefully wrong, i hit a snag. www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/i ... section=E1 E1:3:1 Also if this was allowed, it could/would mean a very simple way to work around the cap.'" That just defines 'players'. You need to look at the parts which calculate cap value, and the parts dealing with player contracts. There are ways and means to offset part or all of the cap value when a player leaves, depending on when, why, and how it happens. In fact there are now so many clauses and exemptions to the cap it basically boils down to whatever you can convince the cap panel to allow.