Seems that way doesn't it?

I did ask Connor if this was the case a while back and he said that we were ok.....either something has changed or he has since received more info than he had at that time.

I had a sneaky feeling we'd have to let the little so-and-so go for nothing if we wanted Herbert in. Looks as though Orford may get away for nothing and his wish of a nice little earner in Aus again.

Hope I'm wrong on this, but not looking promising is it all of a sudden.....

certainly sounds as if somethings changed since connors original tweet re: herberts registration doesnt it.

couple of points that spring to mind. firstly if the figure the oz media is quoting us as owing orford is anything like accurate then it cant just be wages withheld since he requested his release. It must be from when he went back to Oz.
Secondly and potentially a bigger problem is we are now in the 2011 salary cap year. So whilst any alleged money owing would be for 2010 season if we paid it now would it count against our 2011 salary cap?

Way I see it If we do owe awful approx the same amount as we're wanting in compensation then logical thing to do would be for both parties to waive the outstanding monies, meaning orfords free to sign a lucrative 2 year deal and we have no salary cap issues this season. net gain to both parties being zilch. However it looks like awful wants to have his cake and eat it too by getting the alleged withheld pay off of us (which he did nothing to earn other than travel round oz offering his services to other clubs while under contract) whilst at the same time getting the release fee either waived entirely or paid by his new club.

Might be time to bring this to a close and unpalatable as it may be, cut and run.

The last thing we need is a protracted legal dispute.

The man is an oaf. Oaford. What a knob.

No.

Its attributed to the year to which it applies.

thats some good news at least. Is there some rule that we have to register player we hold registration off on our playing register?. I'm assuming RFL have allowed us to sign herbert (and as part of that we've obtained his registration) but they wont accept his registration on playing roster until Awful is removed. If thats the case why cant we do the reverse with awful i.e retain his registration but not register him on playing register?

Mat, you have to assume that everything has been done with the full concurrence of the RFL, I'd suggest? Bear in mind that the club has to sumbit its initial Tier 1 salary cap liability return by 1 November before the coming season, so the club will have had to make its position clear there and have it agreed by the RFL. It has been reported previously - anecdotally -that the RFL are happy with how the Bulls have proceeded, and that must surely be the case?

In particular, I cannot conceive that the club has done anything in breach of the Unspeakable One's contract, or at least anything that the RFL disapproves of, since the Operational Rules relating to the salary cap (at least) make very clear provision for what happens regarding the treatment of contractual payments. And what happens in the event of breach. Also, have we heard anything before from the Unspeakable One about alleged non-payment? Or indeed, anything at ALL from him? Have we buggery. All we hear now is yet more (probably) disingenuous leakings from the Sack of Rat Droppings. Indeed, I would be sure that the club will have gone out of its way specifically NOT to breach anything, and so give the Unspeakable One any excuse. Witness the continual line from the club about him being a Bulls player and they expected him back? Forcing the Unspeakable One to blink first. I really don't think we need to worry about breach of anything by the club here, tbh.

That does not necessarily mean that the Unspeakable One is not owed anything by the club. Within the contractual arrangements. Players' packages, especially the overseas ones and especially when you start getting up to "marquee" levels, tend to be multi-faceted, structured usually in a tax efficient way. Why do you think there has been the big issue of the tax treatment of image rights, for example? I speculate that it is quite conceivable that there may be some part of his package - up to the date late October he asked for a release, at least (no idea of the contractual position after that) - that was agreed was not payable until a later date. Indeed, such things might be quite normal. An example of such a timing effect - and I mention it specifically because I would bet the house on it NOT being something the Bulls get up to - would be the Singapore Parachute (or Sling), where an amount only becomes due at the end of the contract.

Without knowing the details of players' contracts we can only speculate, but maybe a good analogy that most people can relate to is accrued holiday pay? If you leave a job, and have holiday untaken, you'll normally get paid for that. But the liability to make a payment only crystalises on termination of employment. So once you have given notice, you can say that your employer owes you money (accrued holiday pay), but this was not the case until then and the employer had not done a thing wrong. Again, I'd bank on anything that the Unspeakable One may be due is only NOW becoming due, as a consequence of his seeking to break his contract. And, if so, if the club felt it had claims against him for breach of contract, who could argue against them deferring making any payment until the contractual position is resolved? I speculate - that is all any of us can do - but, as I said at the start, I would be very surprised if we were doing anything with which the RFL had an issue.

Im sure you're correct on all that Adey, and Im equally sure club has been very careful to do everything by the book. Im sure if there were outstanding moneis due to orford going back months It would have been used as an excuse for him to walk away from contract. Fact they are only being mentioned now, as you say, suggests its something thats only just become payable. Hopefully we'll get more info/a resolution, in next week or so as alluded to in connors tweet.

I'm only speculating, mat, but I really can't see Messrs Hood, Duckett, Duffy and Bennett making any mistakes here. I for one am sick and tired of hearing about the Unspeakable One, and just want to see us move forward. And I bet the club would say Amen to that!

Orford is clearly a kn*b but all this doesn't do Bradford's rep with NRL players any good.

The Bulls need to reach a conclusion on this one and quickly for the sake of 2011 stability and also future recruitment.

rlLatest on Orfordrl



We owe him £125k all of a sudden?

I don't think it'll affect it at all to be honest. As long as a player is actually willing to see out his contract, this will never be an issue with anyone. And even then, if they did want to leave early, I'm sure if they conducted themselves properly, they'd be more likely to be granted their wish.

This idiot has conducted himself so badly that the club obviously feels he doesn't deserve favours.

[

Disagree with the reputation bit, a good few former and present Antipodean Bulls players will say a lot different, its Awfuls rep that will take a hammering also his Agent Madame Mimmis!

PS: FTV haven't seen you on here for a while! Are you out on remission from hub cap nicking??

Disagree re rep. the world and his dog knows and can see what is happening. See my post above re this alleged "amount owing". Bulls will not have broken any contractual commitment whatsoever, mark my words. The Unspeakable One, by contrast, has made it clear HE intends to break HIS contractual commitments. Its him, and Sack of Rat Droppings, whose reputations are likely to suffer in the eyes of other NRL players. IMO.

Don't forget, the Unspeakable One has previous on this breaking contracts lark.

I agree it is 100% Orford's fault, but I still feel the club needs to act quickly to sort it out - players are likely to see the likes of Wigan and Leeds dealing quickly and less messily with release requests (it's always going to be a consideration for Oz players - what if diddums doesn't enjoy England?). I readily admit the circumstances are different in that Orford is a demonstrable banker, but perhaps the club needs to rise above it, mark it down as a bad deal and move on.

Amen to Adey's excellent posts, and if it is true that we have found a legal way to not pay the twaat then it makes me very happy. In limbo is where he should stay until a deal which suits us is done.

"[ihe is not prepared to forfeit that sort of money[/i " ... indeed!
If it is a question of reputation, then doesn't that say it all? The report if true suggests the cheeky get thinks he has a RIGHT to all his money, even given that he ain't here, hasn't played since 1962 and has the most severe case of homesickness which is that serious, it prevents him from fulfilling his contractual obligations!

"Forfeit" my aarrse. Well played Mr. Hood. We will hopefully end up giving Awford a moral flaying comparable to the cricket, and he and his agent Mr. Dimis will have to crawl to the Bulls' door, cap in hand, and plead for mercy.