Bye - that made me laugh. Especially the Leeds comparison bit.

Shall we stay on topic? We know from experience that any Mystic Eddie versus the world slanging match generally result in threads getting locked and bans being issued.

Its either a win-win or lose-lose situation.
If either Carvell/the rfl/hull fc back down the Bulls regain some "ground" if however they lose it could become open season for any player wanting away.
They simply cannot not do anything, this was always likely and without knowing all the facts i still think the player will win in this situation.

It is possible that there is a contract with the outfit we are using for HR advice that includes the cost of going to court, if you look at the testaments on their websites it looks like they sell that sort of a deal. If something arises you ask their advice and if you follow it to the letter then theres usually legal aid to a value built in to fight your side of it. Which is why the action is against the employee, Carvell, not Hull or the RFL.

This must impact on the value of assets purchased from the administrator. If any employee can refuse to be tuped on the same t and cs as before and so effectively any other competitor can cherry pick, then the only sensible thing to do is buy nothing from the administrator other than the trading name or style, and cherry pick the employees yourself.

Can't see this being the case, OK from the Bulls POV they may see Carvell as being in the wrong but equally if that is the case so are Hull for approaching a contracted player and the RFL for sanctioning the deal.
Seems to me that if the Bulls are right, then all three are in the wrong and not just Carvell??

By all accounts Carvell's agent approached Hull. The RFL nor Hull will face any action here, it will be Bradford against Carvell. I cannot think that the scenario we have now is in any way better than Gareth just having a quiet chat, along the lines of....
GC: I don't want to play for you anymore
BB: We will let you talk to other clubs so long as we are compensated for wages paid to you during your employment.

It's terribly messy now and sets a dangerous precedent for players looking to get out of their contracts. I'm delighted that we've signed him, disappointed in the circumstances of that signing.

I'd love to have been at Garreth's wedding.

"Speak now or forever hold their peace"

*silence*

...

"It is by the power vested in me that I now pronounced you husband and wife, you may now kiss the ... oh"

Garreth runs off with the bridesmaid.

and mr carvell has a couple of big backers behind him to pay the legal fees

just 1 of the many that made me laugh !!

People laughed when the club mentioned the fact that Carvell still had the club sponsored car. However if he was still using it (possibly whilst seeking out future employers) is this not implied acceptance of TUPE situation and therefore change of owner. It seems that the whole thing would have been straight forward had Carvell been informed of the TUPE and he had said "Stuff that I'm off, come and get back all club assets". The players union seem strangely quiet over all this. They look after all their members interests and not just individuals. It can't be in their interest to see players walk out on contracts. If they do it is a short step before clubs start saying "Jeez, I thought you would play better than this. Never mind there's the door".
With regards to the RFL's position don't we have a position now where a player is registered with 2 clubs? If they don't make judgement calls on contract validity couldn't we simply register all of Castleford's team with us before Sunday?

Where are you off on your honeymoon Gareth?

Thailand. We thought about Spain but the missus doesn't like long plane flights

Wow, it took you 4 months to get the joke? You are slow, aren't you?

When I was a small boy it took me about 4 years to work out why my dog soft toy was called "Deefah".

7th of March should be a tasty affair anyway. As long as he's not been sidelined through a career ending injury as some douchebag on here is hoping for.

Correct, those are the implications of my comment IF they succeed against Carvell. if the bulls win and Carvell should have accepted the TUPE with the same terms then the RFL have to accept the courts decision that he is a Bradford player. the next thing they have to decide is his transfer value as clearly there is no going back. If it is breach of contract then Carvell could be liable for the tranfer fee himself as through his breach Bulls have not been able to negotiate with Hull for it (tho you would have thought that Hull would pay it - BUT it would be a payment to a player so part of the salary cap, AND liable for any one off costs that Bradford have to pay to get a replacement in. No wonder the RFL are staying as far away as possible! Whilst I would not wish an injury upon any player, I do hope that the implications of what he could be liable for weigh a little bit on his playing mind when we play Hull.

To return yet again to a previous comment, we tuped Platt at the inflated salary he was on, if Carvell is correct then we want our money back from Platt.

So it all hinges on legalese, I doubt that Hull would let it become Carvells liability so would sensibly come to a settlement, which I am sure is all we want anyway.