I don't quite see it like that. The tone of our press releases is more chatty and personal of late. That will appeal to the core audience far more than sterile perfectly worded statements.

Keep in mind, that you may well be a sophisticated and intelligent gent but a cursory glance at Facebook suggests that isn't the Bulls demographic.

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).

Most Bradford can get is lost of earnings which can't be demonstrated here in my opinion.

In short, reckon Bradford will make some noise about it, then employment solicitors will get involved, they try to claim loss of earnings, Carvel will decline and then it will get dropped. Happens all time, it's almost templated.

TUPE is not as cut and dry and many on here make out. It's basically a bit of legislation to bridge between UK law and EU law and as such can have more than a few twisty turny bits. Now, that's basically an over simplification of the situation but really, it's meant to be protection for employees when company ownership changes hands, it's not meant for getting out of contracts that you don't want to fulfil.

RFL become a laughing stock, but what changes there!!

The guy has taken a good wage (and a car) for months and given nothing for the team. RFL should have stepped in, made Hull cover that costs and then we all move on.
After all he's ready the play on Friday because of us.

You never see a football manager talking about another teams player! Not releasing statements saying there going to sign in, and just start training and register a player.
Absolute joke!

It's actually nothing to do with Hull FC. From a legal perspective all the RFL have done is allow the signing of a free agent as Carvell has likely issued a constructive dismissal claim. This releases him from his employment, regardless of if there is a dispute of him been in violation of his contract. Something an employment tribunal would decide, but this won't even get near a tribunal session. If they won they would have to show a clear case for lost of earnings, which in very much doubt they can do.

Bradford make a fair comment that this is a major issue with sporting contracts. It's certainly not a "precedent" as they suggest, it's happened a lot of times previously including too us in Cooke. It's a fundamental flaw in sports contracts, they really are not worth the paper they are written on.

All we need now is the Points deduction and we can all feel happy and contented. We can draw a line under it and wait for the next series of bad news articles. Maybe we'll get back to playing Rugby at some time!

Totally agree.....

Isn't the qualifying period for Constructive Dismissal the same as Unfair Dismissal? I.e 2 years? I'd have thought TUPE was more likely but didn't he remain at the club after the deadline?

Could someone answer a question for me as there seems to be an inconsistency in the Bulls Statement, but it may be that I am misunderstanding? The statement seems to acknowledge that GC refuse a TUPE transfer and then continues to argue that the club has not changed. Now I understand the arguements that the club continues as the same sporting entity, but is the key not whom employed GC? That must have been OK Bulls for a TUPE transfer to be required at all?

That all seems to fit to me, but there are some posters, whom I would not always agree with but whose opinions I respect that seem convinced it is not that straightforward. Can anyone explain what I am missing?

As for the sponsor car, that is surely a matter between GC and the sponsor, though I can imagine the sponsor will be none too happy, if he was no longer an employee of Bradford Bulls has GC been driving the car without permission and therefore insurance?

Well I hope he gets a career ending injury on Friday. What a twunt.

bradford bull don't exist in legal terms, it's the Ltd co who trade as bradford bulls who contract with the players, hence the TUPE transfer. Any employee has the right to reject TUPE and walk away from any contractual obligations at the time of thee transfer which is what carvell has done. Good on him I say and KARMA for your club doing the same with radford all those years ago

Haven't you got a city centre civil war to organise?

Something weird is going on here.
I mean the sob story involving being away from his family aside (if that's the case why add 100 miles to your daily commute?) one excuse for this bandied about has been job security. So why go from a two to a one year contract?

Wakner is all he is.

I hope Karma for you failure to poach McNamara off us to coach in your hell hole comes back to bite you on the !