thats an interesting comment. Where has Orford made it clear he sees his future in NRL? AFAIK he hasnt made any public comments at all. Is Connor maybe letting slip a statement Orford has made to bulls in private?.

As I've said for a while the line Connor is taking seems to suggest a Orford departure is imminent. This goes against the reporting we've seen over last couple of days on radio leeds/sporting life etc, but I suspect Connors piece is a more accurate reflection of the true state of affairs.

Mat...the club is playing its hand correctly and spot on IMO. I know they won't negotiate through the media, and will continue to make it clear what they expect - and so IMO he, his bloody agent or any other party wishing to "coherse" him away will be very clear what the consequences will be, and therefore what will likely to be needed to secure a resolution. IMO, anyway.

So now it looks like Orford is going to go, who should they get in to replace him? I reckon they should try and go for Tim Moltzen from Wests, he has been out all season, and may have fallen down the pecking order at 7, so the Tigers may be willing to let him go. He looked an outstanding prospect the season before, and at the start of this season.

I suspect it may be hanbury. Connor doesnt usually drop a name like that unless theres more than just a rumour involved. That said Potter could be talking to people whilst down under. dont think we'l hear anything concrete for a few weeks tbh.

Isn't Hanbury first and foremost a full back? I know he plays halves for Crusaders but his favoured position was 1 in the NRL AFAIK.

Don't worry, we wouldn't sign a player who's a natural full back to play as a half back, would we???

true but we are limited as to who may be available. he has advantage over an unkown aussie of being over here and familiar with SL already. In an ideal world I'd want someone better but it may be a case of getting the best thats available for now and looking to bring in someone better/or promoting from within for 2012. May also be case we're looking at a permanent move for kearney to SO and hanbury is intended for FB. All speculation at this stage until rumours firm up a bit.

Similar stuff in today's papers here - suggesting Orford's talking to the Eels and Raiders at least. I reckon there's enough weight behind these 'rumours' to suggest he doesn't want to come back to the Bulls, although he may be forced to of course.

I think its very unfortunate for the Bulls if he decides to rejoin the NRL, as he's undoubtedly a quality player. I suspect however he'll be remembered a bit like Eastwood will at Leeds - good when on the field but with the benefit of hindsight a bit of a disastrous signing.

Would we be in a position to take action in the UK, if he doesn't come back?

Not sure if the law in Australia is the same as ours, particularly when the contract he would be breaking is overseas. Clearly there will be laws about contracts and the breaking of, but with the contract being overseas it might be different. It's possible that the Aussies might regard it as some kind of 'restraint of trade'. Not that I'd expect it to end acrimoniously, I'm sure some kind of deal would be struck.

He will have a UK contract, so the club could take action under English law. I guess the remedy of specific performance (return and play) would be a non-starter, so you'd be looking at liquidated damages. Dunno how strong "restraint of trade" defences would be - in Iestyn's case the judge ruled there was a restraint of trade (no-brainer...) but that it was a valid restraint (from which Decision so many woes subsequently flowed). And dunno how enforceable a UK judgement for damamges would be in Oz. Need a lawyer for that!

Regarding him signing for someone else when still contractually bound to us - we almost have the Iestyn situation in reverse here. Following the "Mainstream Developments" HoL ruling, if in this country then to succeed in an action for Inducement to Breach Contract against the other club we would need to show their action had been taken with the intent to cause us financial loss. Just as we assumed re iestyn, this would surely be a hard one to demonstrate - although all the actions the club is reported as having taken so far seem to me consistent with doing their level best to maximise our chances here. And we have the added complication of where we would have to bring such an action, and therefore under which law it would be heard, and if in Oz then whether the HoL precedent would be binding there (its not impossible it could be). And then, do you run the risk of failure and a huge legal bill? Been there, done that, pawned the tee-shirt.

I see Leeds have cut some deal with the Doggies about "player exchanges" in exchange for releasing Eastwood. Methinks if we should find ourselves in a similar position (remember, Orford has seemingly never suggested he wants to leave...) then we may have a template there?

Am I the only one then that saw that as a way of excusing the fact they've basically let him go for nowt? When I read it, it sounded like them trying to placate fans that they hadn't just let him disappear for free, when in reality, they probably won't end up with any decent exchange out of it.

Maybe I'm just cynical....

Swap Orford for Fui Fui Moi Moi, sign Pryce for stand off and Bosc to play 7. Job sorted, god why are the Bulls making it so difficult?

He can't use his own arm.