They could cover one side of the ground with a roof for that money...at least the fans would benefit from it instead of watching a old man end up playing hooker as he can't run in the mud

Orfords move may not happen now,i hope we're not stuck with this money greedy fooker.

¿que? Source?

true mate, chris walkers agent and lawyers are trying to block the move

www.news.com.au/couriermail/spor ... 09,00.html

www.news.com.au/couriermail/spor ... 09,00.html

Like it or not, Nero and Tadulala have been two of Super League's better players in their positions these last few years. And I'm sure the others have made contributions. I know Bradford do not have young players to step into thos epositions. you seem to think any lad out of the academy will do, but how does it help Tomkins or Eastmond's development to be gliding past a spotty herbert in the opposition centres that they've been schoolboying since they were, er, schoolboys? Isn't the that the direct opposite of what we're hoping to achieve with Burgess and Ellis in the NRL?

Freeing up spots for young players in Super League seems reminiscent of cargo cults. You can build your bamboo control tower and have a bloke out on your carefully marked landing strip all you want, but those planes aren't coming.

The most obvious solution seems to be to try and sift through the greatest resource of young gifted athletes in the UK today - the players discarded by football clubs at 16 or younger. My experience as a teacher was that there are a load of lads for who football is a priority but they can't all play professionally, and some that get cut may just be better suited to RL.

Well for menzies & orford it is.



Big question is will the ex Manly players mix with the rest of the squad, or stop in a clique?, could Mcnamara handle a strong personality like Orford?

Soon find out...

Menzies has been playing like a 25 year old this past season, and has been quality, it's quite clear he hasn't come over to add a few 0's onto his bank account. Orford has got a few years left and I wouldn't say thats amazingly close to retirement. Is Wakefield now the retirement home of the Bradford Bulls? With Jeffries, Newton and Morrison going to them ?

There never was much hope.

Just a fools hope.

In terms of "blocking" Orford's move, I'm struggling to see WTF Orford and his employment have to do, even remotely, with Walker.

If Walker has a beef with Bradford, the he must do what he must do, against Bradford. But to even dream that he has any power or influence on who Matt Orford (or anyone else) works for is truly bizarre.

And given the RFL's rapid acceptance of Bradford's contract with Harris, form suggests Walker's on an utter no hoper down that channel too.

Chris Walker's agent seems certain they have a case against the Bulls. After the whole Greg Bird thing last year, Bradford must be wondering what they've got to do to sign a ridiculously expensive Aussie.

[urlhttp://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews/orford-deal-up-in-air/2009/11/18/1258219882719.html[/url

I think its more to do with the fact he was verbally agreed a contract, thus taking up the last quota spot.

That is my understanding of it anyway

[uIF[/u it turns out the club do have a binding agreement with Walker, and have to pay him off to get out of it, I guess it would count on next seasons cap?

Whatever was paid out would count pro rata over the term of his contract Asim, as I understand it. Depends how long a contract he was offered. I'm guessing 3 years.

But verbally, in this context, would clearly be utterly worthless. Apart from the obvious fact that the Bulls would hardly be likely to agree that yes, verbally, they did have a contract!

And there is nothing that I know of to stop Bradford signing another half dozen over-quota players. As long as by next season they correspondingly unloaded others off their quota, what is wrong with that?

Come to it, why can't they sign more players than the quota allows? It would be pretty dumb, and likely mean sanctions from the RFL, sure, but there is certainly no law against it!

The club could probably sign many quota / non fed trained players however the RFL would only allow them to register and play the number prescribed by the rules.

No.

We'd just not register him with the RFL.

Good point.


Either way, I can say with some confidence, Walker will not be a Bradford player next season.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 922464.ece doesnt seem to have any impact on the Orford deal directly - the Bulls would just have to choose which 5 of their 6 Aussies they want to register with the RFL. They will still have to honour the contract of the 6th one though.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 922464.ece doesnt seem to have any impact on the Orford deal directly - the Bulls would just have to choose which 5 of their 6 Aussies they want to register with the RFL. They will still have to honour the contract of the 6th one though.

that's under the assumption there actually is a contract between Walker and the Bulls and not just a letter of intent.

I know you can never trust anyones version of events in this kind of thing but:

“We negotiated in good faith. We signed a letter of agreement in August and they issued a contract and we signed it and sent it back to them."

sounds like they are fairly certain there is a contract in place.

If Bulls did not sign it FIRST, and have stiull not signed it, then there is no written contract.

However, I suspect that a judge might well decide that, on balance of probabilities, a de facto contract was in place and that Walker was entitled to rely on it - unless there was something explict to the contrary.

I keep suggesting Bulls fans keep our powder dry on all this. I just hope this does not turn out to be another Bulls contract disaster (its already a PR disaster). That barrel of powder may be dry, but its big and well-primed, and if this goes tîts up I can see the fanbase going nuclear. Please God let it not be so.

Doesn`t a contract have to be signed by both parties? I`d assume that both sides to the contract would have a copy with both signatures, so are we supposed to believe that Walker signed in August but hasn`t bothered (or perhaps more likely, his agent hasn`t bothered) to chase up his copy of the completed paperwork?

Let`s be realistic; Walker reckons he signed a contract in August, in the meantime the club has signed a number of players for next year and one by one they have all been announced except Walker`s `deal`, which seems to have been `forgotten`?

Not the most likely scenario to be honest.

I`m not %100 on this but my understanding is that legally,a verbal contract is just as binding as a written contract. It is, for obvious reasons, just a teeny bit more difficult for a court to decide whether, and in what form, it might have existed.

I`ve forgotten who said that a verbal contract wan`t worth the paper it was printed on, some American I think, but whilst legally that might not be strictly the case, in practice I guess it might be.