And this is where you are completely wrong, and why the RFL won't get involved, as if they did, it would be open season on player contracts.

Sheffield seem to be stating that, whilst he was subject to disciplinary measures, he hasn't actually been sacked. If he had, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on and wouldn't have made this statement.

Bulls' best best is to pin this on the player and/or his agent, saying that they were informed by the agent that he was free to sign. Now that they're aware he isn't, that they will of course not be signing him until he becomes free. Alternatively agree a transfer fee, but I can't see that option happening.

To me is screams of the player or his agent being the one in the wrong. Even Bulls surely wouldn't be stupid enough to know he was still under contract at Sheffield and sign him anyway (I appreciate they have shown examples of similar stupidity in the past). Whether it's down to Sheffield telling the player he was released and it not being the case, or whether it's the player/agent jumping the gun, will remain unclear. Either way, the worst Bradford will have done is not ask for proof that he had been released, and taken it on the word of the player/agent.

Come on Dane, get your emails out

What a mess.

Can't see him coming at all now.

Has he been training etc?

Maybe Bradford can split the cost for the illegal approach with the other Championship teams and the SL team who all made him offers. Unless that did not happen and his agent was telling porkies.

This is easily resolved.
1. Bulls apologise - say they were given duff information from both player and agent.
2. Chissy gets sacked anyway - they are not going to carry on paying him for doing nothing.
3. Bulls sign him.

If only it was that simple.

His contract runs out in just over a week anyway.

How do we know this?

Not according to the press release I have read from when he signed. It says he signed for a year.