No question this is a good move for both Bradford and Sam himself.

Knowing Sam as I do, there is no question that if the Bulls had asked Sam to fulfill the remainder of his contract he would have with the same commitment he always has.

The fact that an NRL offer was on the table either this year or next always meant that we would be looking for a fee. He hasn't broken his contract, only made clear that he would like to move to oz at the end of his current one.

I for one will be sad to see him go, but only more sad as I will not be able to follow his progress due to the television rights not being with Sky.

All the best Sam and I look forward to the day we see you in your "home" colours again!!!

How can you dispute it? The signings over the last couple of years have hardly shown great ambition.

I'm looking at this in a positive light. As much as the club denies any financial trouble I think that the reported £200,000 will be much more usefull in the long term than one more year out of Sam.
*edited for typo

The only issue I would take with your post Adey is the phrase "to the surprise of many in the legal profession".

Where have you got that from?

Must say on my reading of the preliminary issue it came as no surprise that Mr Justice Gray held what he did and the real surprise was that the Bulls lawyers raised such an ill fated preliminary issue at all.

Sad he has gone but give the guy some respect. He hasn't chosen to be a big fish in a small pond but taken a brave step to test himself in the toughest environment he can.

Hopefully, more will follow him and IMO people like Fielden & Peacock should have done the same.

Sorry, was referring to the situation before the existence and nature of the various agreements was generally known. Up to that point, several lawyers I spoke to (and some others whose views I read as well as the odd earth pig or two...

) seemed sure that what they assumed the "agreement" to be would be voided for undue restraint of trade. As indeed did I.

Having read Mr Justice Gray's decision, I have since said quite a few times that even I could understand why he held what he did. As no doubt will all the rest of your lot, who do it for a living.

As for why the lawyers raised the preliminary issue - well wasn't it more the case that it was Leeds Rugby who brought the two actions against Harris, and the "inducement" action against the Bulls? And that both parties had agreed to first have the court rule on whether the contract/s were void on the various grounds of restraint of trade, uncertainty and lack of consideration? If no contract, then the three actions Leeds brought would fail. What alternative did the Bulls have, other than to insist it went straight to full hearing or to concede and settle OOC? That's how I read it, anyway?

Surely the real issue was whether the Bulls - or at least our Chairman - had indeed been made aware pre-signing of the contract of which Leeds alleged they had induced breach? That is surely crucial? And, if they had, whether the club (or Chairman) acted recklessly or negligently in proceeding nevertheless, without the assurance that the contract would indeed be void? And who made those decisions and who told whom what about the risks?

And then, after the Mainstream ruling, why the club nevertheless found it necessary to settle with Leeds, when that case appeared to restrict damages for induced breach to cases where the defendant had sought to inflict financial loss on the claimant? Must admit I felt extremely let down after that.

Have I got that broadly right?

I thought the Bulls pushed for it ("the unlawful restraint issue) to be tried as a preliminary issue. I can understand why Leeds would've agreed to that tactically. You're right, if they= Bulls had succeeded it would've likely ended the whole litigation.

However, I can't see how it would ever have succeeded. It seemed pretty clear to me that it was a valid restraint, Harris having benefitted significantly for having entered into it.

The Bulls could've simply ran their defence and saved the costs of the failed restrain issue.

I never thought the Mainstream case was as fatal to Leeds case against the Bulls as most commentators on here did. I can't recall how I distinguished it but I had a lengthy debate with FA on here at the time. I can only assume the Bulls legal team shared my view or, as you say, why settle? Unless, of course, the Bulls simply lost the stomach for the fight.

id be happy with that.

I'de be happy with any positive news coming out about new signings.

www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 70,00.html Surprised no-one else has confirmed this yet!

www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 70,00.html Surprised no-one else has confirmed this yet!

Gutted, and increasingly more worried about the 2010 squad.

Good luck to him anyway.

All the very best to Sam as far as I've concerned.

I hope he is a [imassive [/isuccess in Oz - and knocks a few head (and those flippin Ozzie ego's too)

If it doesn't work out how he ("some" of us) hope, then at least he's tried (better to have tried and failed than to live your life wondering . . . . . .)

Intend to visit Oz in the next year or so with Mrs BP - yet another stop to drop in on our tour



Dewsbury Moor to Souths, via the Bulls

The boys done good . . . . . and I know his Dad was (and would be with this latest chapter) so proud of him

Go make us all proud(er) of you Sam. All the best mate!

It's been confirmed in loads of places earlier this evening

It's well and truly past that stage now . The incoming players have to be of a real high quality to show we still do have ambition instead of settling for making up the numbers.

Same here.

Signing Steve Menzies(as much as I love him) has been the major contributing factor of Sam leaving his Bulls contract 2 years prematurley.

You reckon?

Based on what exactly?

Supposition / personal belief / "everyone knows it's so", are not valid reasons for such a strong assertion, IMO, TM.

I don't reckon, I know. If Burgess hadn't have been sweet talked by Menzies - who alerted Manly, who then declared interest, which alerted every man and his dog, then we'd still have a settled Burgess on our hands till the end of his contract.

I dont care to be honest.

I'd rather him go now and we cash in than lose out big time when he walked away.

Yes we will miss him, but not if he plays like he did for the first half of the season

The news is sickening, what's happened to building for the future?

Why Manly?

Another super duper day for the Bulls.

I tells ya, under the present regime we are really going places.

The sooner we get a new broom in and sweep out all the rubbish from within our club the better.

Bloody joke.

I don't think it's anything to do with money. Anyone with the talent & ambition would do the same.

Are you volunteering?

Because you never ever ever post anything constructive about this on here. All you do is complain, and go on and on about what you believe is wrong. We can all do that, and it does not take a lot of brainpower. The harder part is proposing practicable alternatives, and I have never ever seen anything from you that has the slightest chance of being able to happen.

Maybe now is a good time to enlighten us about the actions that should be taken, or (since you have made your views very clear on this) more to the point, how your solution might be brought about?

...is the RIGHT answer.

I agree entirely. And I defy pretty well anyone to say they would do otherwise in his position.