I know hood 'expected' bulls to get it for sammut , but it all seems to be a lot harder than first thought and maybe their not going to after all. What i don't understand is , why don't we release him let the rfl say he's free under the ruling they gave for the crusaders players as he's never played for the bulls and then just re-sign him?? it's something leeds/wigan would do and get away with it.
Think sometimes we pussyfoot around too much with the rfl and because we dont have a big name running the club we also get bullied and told what we can and cant do, where other clubs seem to tell the rfl what they are going to do.
Come on lets grow a pair

You shouldn't be desperate to get a player off quota to sign another one when you hadn't planned too anyway! TBH even though we have some of them i'd rather they were all still on quota anyway!

It's a joke.

It's a disgrace.

Bulls won't be in much of a stronger position if they get the dispensation for Sammut.

They only signed him for 1 year. If they sign another overseas player, they will have to release Sammut next year.

We might as well work on the provision that the dispensation will not apply.

I know the RFL are busy rigging the votes for the man of steel at the moment but it's dragging on a bit too long is this. Why don't the Bulls get their solicitor to make his way to (Cherry) Red (and white) Hall and slap big 'ol Nigel Wood with a writ? Say we are taking them to court over a restriction of trade and make all the media outlets aware of it. Whether it is or not doesn't matter because it would never get as far as court - the bad publicity would force the RFL's hand.

Not sure I agree with the writ, but I absolutely agree that this is dragging on interminably.

I cannot for the life of me see why on earth this is taking so long. There is no new information to discover, and nothing that can be known in the future that wasn't immediately true when he was signed and registered with the Bulls

So just make a decision people! If he's not going to get dispensation - and I fully expect the RL to screw us over once again - then just say so, and be done with it. Then we can plan ahead accordingly.

Given we've lost 2 players this week, the dispensation would be of benefit to us as we need some extra players and the more options we have the better.

Really, I can't see a reason that we shouldn't be granted dispensation.

[sizeIf[/size all this dithering is down to timing of the signing, it's irrelavent if we signed him a week, a day or an hour before the deadline, we still signed him before the deadline.

IT isnt anything to do with signing deadline if thats what you're referring to. Its just a case of whether we had signed him before RFL granted the dispensations to the crusaders players. Given contracts usually take a week or two to negotiate as a minimum I'd guesswe were certainly in the process of signing him and from memory we'd already announced his signing the day before the dispensations were announced publically. It probably comes down to whether the dispensation were granted a day or two before they became public knowledge or whether they were announced within an hour or two of RFL deciding to give them. Personally I think we probably signed him a day or two too early and dont have a leg to stand on.

Yes, that's the deadline I meant

In which case surely its a simple yes/no answer from RFL. They know when dispensation was agreed and also when we registered sammuts contract. Absolutely no need for it to have dragged on this long.

Exactly my point. I really don't see any reason for the endless dragging of feet

The dispensation was to help players suddenly redundant to find work, and he'd found work when the dispensation was announced. I don't see that we have much of a leg to stand on, and the time it's taking for an announcement doesn't give me much confidence.

Prediction: No dispensation and Sammut out all season with a dodgy leg.

The club may have already had an answer which is not to their liking and the delay in info might be due to the club appealing. As you say, we should have had the original yes/no answer from the rfl.