Quote: M@islebugs "The only 'fact' is that they were contracted to the Bradford Bulls and what is nonsense is your understanding of a 'contract'. It is not only not a waste of time to enforce contracts it is essential if you do not want a queue of players forming at your door who have been told by agents they can earn more elsewhere despite being contracted to the club. Your understanding of a 'contract' means that we are obliged to pay poor and/or injured players until their contract expires whilst those who want to cancel their contracts when it suits them can do so. In Sam and George's case it appears we have recieved little in the way of compensation. This has laso led to speculation regarding Tom. Any player is seen as a potential target because the club will not stand behind its own contract (Andy Lynch). This is catastrophic in any business but doubly so in professional sport. Orford and George Mimmis knew what they were dealing with when they up against Bradford Bulls.
On Orford, the nonsense really is that the club started the season with one halfback having failed to recruit or develop a successor to Paul Deacon and Iestyn Harris over the previous two seasons. I remember we were 4th and I remember where we finished the season and who played 6 and 7 for most of the remainder. Chris Cailsey's fault? Hardly!'"
In law you are quite correct as regards contracts, though I believe my view reflects the reality on the ground; that any player who has no wish to be at a club is best let go, as he's unlikely to give his best, contract or no contract. The number of clubs who can afford to stick a 'wantaway' into the second team and let him stew are few and far between and I certainly wouldn't include the Bulls in that list. By allowing them to leave you do, at least, lose your liability to pay them and are able to bring in someone who [idoes[/i want to be at the club.
With respect to the Orford problem, it wasn't just he wanted to leave but the fact he denied this whilst his agent was arranging deals in Australia. That this extended over the next pre-season was why it affected the following season. Did anyone say that was Caisley's fault btw?, for mine it was Orford and no-one else, save perhaps Mimmis.
As their agent, I would think CC was instrumental in moving Sam and George to Sydney, though. As the largest shareholder in the club it seems a strange thing to do and certainly shows a conflict of interest. Whether they had long had dreams to go or Caisley put the idea into their heads I don't know, but if it was a long standing wish, then he was only doing his best for his contracted players. I guess we'll never know.