What did he get sack for?

I've heard the claim by Sheffield is nonsense, apparently it's a restraint of trade and not enforceable. We've taken legal advice on this...

Add him to the list of signed people who can't actually play or work for us - Chisholm, Phoenix and Toovey.
I wonder how many others we can sign that can't show their faces at the club?

Surley the RFL will know if he is a registered player with Sheffield.

FFS.

Instead of being happy to have a popular player back, we're all worried that the club are going to get hit with a legal battle again.

CAN I HAVE A SIMPLE LIFE PLEASE BRADFORD!

Hopefully Sheffield are simply clutching at straws and we haven't made an illegal approach for Dane. The last thing we need is another legal saga.

suspect due to timing this is unlikely to be resolved until after easter fixtures. You'd hope delay in us making announcement was while we were checking with RFL, but fact we hastily added paragraph on website about him not being available till contract clauses, after Sheffield released there statement suggests they may have blindsided us.

I assume this will only be about registration if rog is correct about him being sacked. I'm hearing we checked with the RFL first though, so I'm a bit confused.
There is precedent in football about players being sacked but the club (highest profile being Chelsea) getting a fee.
I don't think there is precedent in rugby league.
Obviously there is previous with "first refusal" clauses which we know about

FFS. Just effing typical. So we sign a new player in time for the Easter matches, and not only can he not play, we are stuck in a legal battle. It's just so Bradford.

Do we not have a lawyer or indeed anyone who can check this stuff? Its painful.

I'm pleased we've signed a player who has previously shined for the club.

Tch.

So we have Dane back do we need Phoenix???

I've given up hope of him ever arriving tbh. Guy's a myth.

Dane's statement from Twitter



Seems it's Sheffield in the wrong and are attempting to hamstring both player and his new club

Interesting comments from DC. There are always 2 sides to every story though.

Taking a wild guess at this but my thoughts are as follows:

Dane did something wring was suspended and knew he was getting the sack found a new club (Bulls) Sheffield agreed to release him but then found out he was going to Bulls so thought they may have a opportunity to get some money.

Just a guess.

Best of luck if they think they can get money from us. Isn't there a saying somewhere abou getting blood out of a stone.
Also I am a bit shocked by all the people that say he couldn't have signed for us unless the RFL agreed he was free to do so. Just have two words to add Iestyn Harris.

Dane did something wring was suspended and knew he was getting the sack found a new club (Bulls) Sheffield agreed to release him but then found out he was going to Bulls so thought they may have a opportunity to get some money.

Just a guess.'"

It looks like posturing by the Eagles they have no money to get into a legal stoush neither do the Bulls, the so called comparisons with Harris are irrelevant, the Sod Hall mob aren't going to sanction a signing if there is a real problem, its just a miffed Club doing it's best to derail the Bulls over the weekend, nothing wrong in that just a bit of gamesmanship, just roll with it as it will just go away!

It says on a well known video site he has resigned for the Bulls, plus a video saying hes glad to be back

The RFL don't check on the contractual position, nor should they - that would open them to possible liability. All they do is register a player. If you tell them you've signed a player you apply to register him, and if the registration is accepted then he can play for you.

Whether contractually he is still in some relationship with his former club is irrelevant. So no reason why he can't play once we hold his registration, and a contractual dispute wouldn't stop the RFL registering him (see case of Harris, I.) But if Sheffield still hold his registration, then of course he cant play for us until that changes.

It's a play for

A) a bit of compo
B) weakening our position for as long as possible.

I hope it comes back and bites them.

Tbf he was in the wrong getting sacked but has to be allowed to move on.
A player is no good to you if they don't want to play, we know that all to well.

Would Chisholm need a visa? I'm completely lost when it comes to those now. I was thinking if Yes then maybe we've finally cleared that hurdle.

Somewhere I read he's a French International player so that should negate that proble~m!

This is very strange, if you sack somebody can you still hold their registration?