The RFL aren't getting them the potential new owners for Bradford, they have to approve them, just like they did with Glover.

Are you really naive enough to believe that? The London based businessman who has a history in rugby union and just happened to have been involved with the RFL through some marketing work on the world cup just coincidently looked and saw a debt-laden club up north and thought 'i'll have a bit of that' did he? Give over.

Ordinarily that's true; however, TUPE rules are slightly different in the case where the outgoing employer is insolvent, which I believe is the case here. Terms and conditions of employment *can* be varied during transfer of undertakings (with the agreement of trade union or employee reps) provided the variations are designed to save the business.

If there is any truth to the rumour of some players opting out of the TUPE, they would sacrifice the majority of their rights and entitlements as part of the process, but it could have the result of making them effectively free agents, which would explain the Carvell situation.

I have no reason to think otherwise so I guess the answer is yes I am that naive.

OK bulls arent or werent at the time insolvent, thay had merely appointed administrastors.
AFAIK you have to be made insolvent through the courts, which they havent been.

I don't think so.

Being in administration, OK Bulls will have been considered to have been in ‘relevant insolvency proceedings’ that ‘are not with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor.' As such, TUPE regulations are broadly applicable, but newco has greater scope to vary the T's and C's of employment.

It seems academic now, as Carvell looks like the only one to jump ship; I assume he did so by refusing the varied terms and conditions, but that is just an assumption. He could just as easily have negotiated his way out to reduce the Bulls wage bill.

I got in to a little debate about this the all knowing font of knowledge on the Bulls forum.
Whenever any individuals written terms of a contract of employment are changed for any reason (including TUPE) an employee is allowed a "Reasonable" period of consultation, in line with employment law this consultation period runs the same as redundancies, it's been a while since I was involved in employment law and things have changed a bit and I agree that I am not up to speed on it all, but having gone through TUPE where my employer tried to change my written terms (Private health insurance and company car removed from my package) I refused TUPE and went through a 30 day consultation period as the option to not accepting TUPE was redundancy, interestingly enough I got offered an enhanced redundancy package as part of my consultation, which I took and the rest is history.
I don't think Carvell will be the only one in this position and baring in mind there is now another suitor for the bulls, and the administration purchased by the new BOD has not been fully approved then the TUPED contracts cannot have been enforced, as the newco has not been fully approved by the administrator.
Whatever response the FONT decides to post once he looks at this I won't be responding too, I know exactly what happened to me, it was only 2008 when it happened and I know what my statutory employment rights were, so no "Barrack room lawyer" can tell me different.
_________________________________________________________________________
edit
Forgot to mention, I had to sign a compromise agreement to ensure I couldn't sue for constructive dismissal, I got the wording changed so that it would allow any claim for disability discrimination and injury/accident, I had suffered a back problem due to incorrect desk ergonomics, and 6 months later sued them for a few more grand

Oh yeah, almost forgot, Thanks to Lee Smith, I thought he was a class player (when played in his favoured position) and I will miss him, good luck in the future Lee, hope it all works out for you

I thought that the company had to apply for insolvency, either way the bulls seem to do what ever they want as the Carvell situation and numerous other recent situations have shown so it matters little.