As we discovered with the Paul Cooke fiasco, you can't 'hold' a player's registration without a valid contract. The 'playing registration' is simply the formal registration of a valid contract with the RFL - no contract, no registration.

The RFL are only interested in whether RFL rules have been broken, and if there is no evidence of this they will happily transfer the registration and let the two clubs handle the dispute through the courts if they want to. Their default position is always to do nothing if they can possibly get away with it.

Had doubts from before signing so best he is gone, no one wants a player who isn't 100% committed.

But Cooke's contract had expired, therefore the contract registered with the RFL was clearly invalid. I don't see the parallel. Carvell's contract hasn't expired and only came into force on 1st November.

Even taking into account what you're saying, are you saying the RFL have decided, irrespective of the Bradford clubs assertion, that his contract is invalid? Seems a bold move considering what the club are saying.

Thats what happened with Iestyn. Leeds sent us a letter saying he was registered with them, we had legal advice otherwise, RFL registered his contract with us.

So in this case we are now Leeds. Lets see if we can win this one, to the extent they won theirs...

Cooke's contract had been extended. He hadn't signed the extension but had been taking the improved pay and conditions for a season or so when he walked out. In employment law that would normally constitute acceptance of the contract. See the similarity now?

Carvell claims to have not accepted the TUPE transfer. The latest Bulls statement seems to accept that. Therefore - on the face of it - Carvell's contract was in a similar state to Cooke's. This is why I said some while ago that I wouldn't be surprised to see the RFL sanction the move.

The RFL have seen Carvell's contract. They have almost certainly been provided with evidence of his TUPE refusal by Carvell or his agent. Clearly they feel that Carvell was a free agent and has since signed a legitimate contract with Hull FC - and all within RFL rules. Time will tell if they're right or not.

Wow, this is messy, TUPE is usually underpinned by case law, hence establishment of legal precedents, and the only true winners being the legal firms & their fees. In Carvell's case a couple of key points to consider are that:

Objecting to a transfer means:

1. Their employment ends on the date of the transfer, so they do not need to work out their notice period and are free to go to work elsewhere immediately.

2. They may be released from restrictive covenants in their contract. There has been a High Court case where the new employer could not enforce restrictive covenants against an employee whose employment did not transfer over to it

Hence, so long has he clearly stated an objection to the transfer (no reason is required) then point 1 is valid, and there's scope within point 2 to prevent the rentention of his registration by Bradford (noting legal precedent set albeit this could be countered), but all this will need legal expertise, arguement and cost to sort out.

I've been on this Bulls board long enough to know the majority yourself included are good, honest folk with a real passion for their club. Unfortunately this kind of thing will stir emotion and reaction to silly irrelevant comments so I totally understand your response.

Lets hope this doesn't drag on too long and we can all get back to talking about Rugby League.

You can say that again

So the RFL are taking a view on the validity of contracts, even where there is a dispute between the parties, and in this case DECIDING, the contract between Carvell and the Bradford club is invalid. I just can't see that.

I'm not sure we're any further forward. The RFL cannot act as arbiter/judge in these matters and i'm still unsure what the point of registration is, and specifically what the 'holding' of registration means if the title can be transferred without a party'e agreement.

The RFL can judge the validity of a contract [iunder their rules[/i. Which is what they did in the Cooke case and have done in this case. And in the Harris case for that matter. They then say that if the affected club wishes to take legal action under employment law then it's up to them to do so. What the RFL won't ever do is take a view on the [ilegal[/i status of a contract one way or the other.

The Cooke case was different. Obviously. Old ground, but he was contracted, but as there was no paper evidence of the length of the contract, he could, arguably, resign and ask for his registration to be cancelled. Where he came a bit of a cropper was in notifying Rovers of his availability prior to getting that cancellation confirmed. Because he was on record in the press as having accepted a new deal for however many years it was, my entirely inexpert view is that Hull [icould [/ihave won a court case. But the risk to reward ratio made it unlikely they'd ever pursue that option - despite statements to the contrary at the time. In that there is a likely similarity, I reckon.

The more obvious precedent is Kopczak (excluding the Keith Mason trial revelations). Whether OK Bulls might have followed that up further, I guess we'll never know.



I think it is more a case that contract law has to take precedence over their own rules. If they do anything that might be viewed as a restraint of trade (over and above the registration system itself, at least), they could end up in hot water themselves. If there's doubt, it's safer to let the player move. Then any issues can be dealt with retrospectively. They're trying to stay out of it, rather than act as judge - on the contract side of it, at least. If the Bulls were to claim a breach of the registration rules, that'd be the RFL's remit. Likely a fairly pyrrhic victory though, even if they found in the Bull's favour.

Oh, so he freely avails himself of the BENEFITS of the contract but doesn't want to do the contracted work and you think it's OK? I'm glad you never worked with me...

I'm struggling to see what the Bulls owners hope to achieve by legal action.

No court is going to order Carvell to stay with the Bulls and I doubt that the Bulls want that anyway. Would Cummins or his team mates want him back? What sort of attitude would he have if he did return? Would he give 100%?

Any court ruling will not be binding on the RFL unless the Bulls sue the RFL as well as Carvell. Would that be wise given that (officially at least) there has not yet been any ruling on a points deduction following the administration?

Any damages they may recover are going to be limited to his wages and other benefits received so are going to be very modest in amount.

The Bulls don't have a claim against Hull unless they have evidence that Hull approached Carvell (as opposed to the other way round).

This is all going to end in very expensive tears. As Cummins said yesterday, time to move on.

That makes more sense and explains Hull stating that Clarke had informed them about Carvell's availability. This places them out of harms way (unlike in the Kopczak case).

This isn't about what's already happened. This is about laying down a marker.