i dont know why this is even an issue anymore

Sam Barlow is not worth a 30 point win which we got.

we played well, we deserved the win, we defended well, Sam Barlow scored a try but we were far better on the night.

from what am hearing is the RFL have given him permission to play.

Mark Aston should just drop it, theres no sense in dwelling over it as his team were out played and wouldnt have won even if Barlow hadnt of played

there will be no 'sue barlow' ... aston has bullied sam all week, total disgrace.. i hope they try sue KEN then the truth will really come out.

Thought his try celebration, the ripping up of an imaginary contract was like watching a Brazilian goal celebration, very amusing.
From a neutrals perspective I think the whole issue clearly affected Sheffield more than Fax and made no difference whatsoever to the result.

Aston trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes. He uses words like integrity and honesty yet when it comes to it he is one person who is lacking in both departments and when it comes to it Sam Barlow may just be able to prove this. We know it wont go that far because Aston wont want his name dragging in to the mud and ruining all the good work he has done at Sheffield.
Chuffed the lad didnt get intimidated by Astons bullying tactics and had a really solid game. Watching him and Worrincy score trys was worth the admission price alone.

Quote Haighy="Haighy" In the next article it says it bars him=#FF0000 from playing in 2010, but if Sheffield want to argue that his inclusion in the Blackpool 9s is breaking the contract... www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local/S ... 6456485.jp [iBut under the terms of his release from the South Yorkshire outfit, =#FF0000the 23 year old forward cannot play against them in 2010. i'" If that was the wording , , your in the wrong

Quote Haighy="Haighy" In the next article it says it bars him=#FF0000 from playing in 2010, but if Sheffield want to argue that his inclusion in the Blackpool 9s is breaking the contract... www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local/S ... 6456485.jp [iBut under the terms of his release from the South Yorkshire outfit, =#FF0000the 23 year old forward cannot play against them in 2010. i'" If that was the wording , , your in the wrong

Dosen't matter.

If two parties cant agree on something then they should go to the relevant authority. This is what we did, and the RFL cleared Sam to play. End of discussion. Aston can say what he wants, the Sheffield Board members are not idiots, they will not pursue it.

We outplayed them in every area of the game. Aston is just clutching at straws.

I beg to differ, have you read their board?

Who says the RFL are correct, couldn't they now be implicated in the 'apparent' breach of contract

Board of Directors I meant, but I know what you are refering to!

Quote Haighy="Haighy"www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local/Fax-v-Eagles-Sheffield-threaten.6535267.jp [i"Courier Sport understands the Rugby Football League have already told both clubs they have no basis on which to intervene."[/i In the next article it says it bars him from playing in 2010, but if Sheffield want to argue that his inclusion in the Blackpool 9s is breaking the contract... www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local/S ... 6456485.jp [iBut under the terms of his release from the South Yorkshire outfit, the 23 year old forward cannot play against them in 2010. "I won't be out there on Sunday, it was just something that was a condition of Sheffield letting me go that was written into the contract," said Barlow, who confirmed that he was only able to play against the Eagles in last month's Northern Rail Nines final - which Fax won - after rival coach [size=150Mark Aston gave his approval[/size.[/i'" One could argue that a prescedent had already been set, by Aston himself, by allowing Barlow to play against the Sheffield Eagles in 2010.

Quote Haighy="Haighy"www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local/Fax-v-Eagles-Sheffield-threaten.6535267.jp [i"Courier Sport understands the Rugby Football League have already told both clubs they have no basis on which to intervene."[/i In the next article it says it bars him from playing in 2010, but if Sheffield want to argue that his inclusion in the Blackpool 9s is breaking the contract... www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local/S ... 6456485.jp [iBut under the terms of his release from the South Yorkshire outfit, the 23 year old forward cannot play against them in 2010. "I won't be out there on Sunday, it was just something that was a condition of Sheffield letting me go that was written into the contract," said Barlow, who confirmed that he was only able to play against the Eagles in last month's Northern Rail Nines final - which Fax won - after rival coach [size=150Mark Aston gave his approval[/size.[/i'" One could argue that a prescedent had already been set, by Aston himself, by allowing Barlow to play against the Sheffield Eagles in 2010.

Correct , but

Rugby league transfer agreements are not actual sale of goods. They are an agreement to transfer the RFL registration of a player from one team to another. By allowing him to play, the RFL have said that the transfer of this registration was not conditional on him being unable to play against Sheffield this year.

When the news broke about Stanley Gene winning his tribunal there was a comment from our chairman, in this comment it contained the words "...Standard RFL players Contract..." (I think). If the RFL made the contract and are responsible for maintaining its validity then they are the ultimate authority.