Something I think it quite telling is that no press release was ever put out by the Bulls trumpeting the signing of Walker. Surely if it was done and dusted (as the Walker camp would like everyone to believe) there would have been an official announcement by either the Bulls or Walker?

If you had to pay him off would it count on salary cap

I would think definitely, yes.

I would think not.

Seems clear he has not been registered as a player with the RFL, so is not part of the salary cap spend.

Had he been given a contract, then as Tristram pointed out above he would have HAD to have been registered. Ergo...no contract can have been signed.

If no contract has been signed, then its hard to see how he can have a claim for a pay-off. (A claim against his agent for gross negligence maybe...?)

Ergo, any pay-off would have to be non-contractual, for a non-registered player. And therefore has no bearing on the salary cap.

That would be my take on this hypothetical scenario anyway.

Walker claims contract HAS been signed: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/141 ... rford-deal

Walker claims contract HAS been signed: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/141 ... rford-deal

A small video clip of an interview with Walker where he says he's intending to play for us and honour his contract: www.foxsports.com.au/league/vide ... 55,00.html I'd feel a lot more reassured if we could find out what the club's stance on this is

A small video clip of an interview with Walker where he says he's intending to play for us and honour his contract: www.foxsports.com.au/league/vide ... 55,00.html I'd feel a lot more reassured if we could find out what the club's stance on this is

Quote Fully="Fully"Walker claims contract HAS been signed: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/141 ... rford-deal'" From the article: "We signed a letter of agreement, the club issued a contract and we signed it and sent it back to them" I'd be interested to know what the agent meant by the word 'issued'. If the Bulls made it clear that the document sent was for information/discussion then it should be alright.

Quote Fully="Fully"Walker claims contract HAS been signed: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/141 ... rford-deal'" From the article: "We signed a letter of agreement, the club issued a contract and we signed it and sent it back to them" I'd be interested to know what the agent meant by the word 'issued'. If the Bulls made it clear that the document sent was for information/discussion then it should be alright.

[urlhttp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/4747330.Walker___s_threat_is_no_worry_for_Bulls/[/url

little bit of comment from club even if is no comment



not very good reporting when the guy cant even get the number of quota spots correct and misses a major signing of the list

in fact there was actually a quote from hood that we werent interested in walker and it was all rumours round about time sam left iirc.

But the "we're not interested bit" might have been Hood not wanting to over play his hand and make Walker and his agent think they could squeeze out more cash from the Bulls

Yes I thought that odd too. No mention of him as a Bulls player since he supposedly signed in AUGUST!

This kind of thing must happen a lot. Players are offered an amount by a club and often end up signing for another in the end.
If the Bulls are found to be legally bound by their negotiations then doesn't this set a precedent that any such deals in the future are set in concrete as soon as any serious contract discussions have taken place?
I'm not sure player agents would like to be in that situation as they often use them to up player deals between different clubs who are after the same player.