So now its Cummings turn to try and sue us Bradford Bulls Is it just me or is rugby leagues turning into a cheap made poorly directed soap opera !!

Simply a case of should he have been paid the remainder of his contract or not? Either there's a termination clause or there isn't. Why is it people are incapable of leafing through the paperwork without lawyers having to get involved? Two parties sign a contract and it's there in black or white or it isn't. It would take about two minutes to look.

Another sad legacy of the Khan / Sutcliffe venture! Lets hope its sorted soon.

I feel sorry for the guy, but the bottom line is he failed in his role. That's why he was sacked.
The fans gave him a no confidence vote which can be seen in the dwindling crowds.
The team gave him a no confidence vote in the way they played under him compared to how they now play under Lowes.
What else could the BOD do but say they've no confidence in his abilities and terminate his contract.

However, I'd not be surprised if there's no termination clause in Cummins contract. That's the kind of slapdash business we've all come to expect from the fallout from the Khan days

My thoughts exactly. Not sure why there is even a dispute here. If there is an early release clause then fine, but if not he is paid out for the remainder of the contract. It will be written in black and white.

Think it depends who wrote the contract. If OK and RW were involved suspect there are grey areas. Impression I get is green would have been fair re: compensation but won't be taken to cleaners either.

If players contracts become null and void does that also apply to coaching staff. If so, wouldn't they only need to pay till November.

I can't imagine any contract being set up by Mr Green without him knowing every letter and full stop in it.

Give him a final written warning or pay him up, isn't that what you would have wanted for yourself.

Who's to say he'd not already had such a warning? It's something that's not in the public forum, as these things never are.

Sport is a results driven business. Don't get results and you're going out of business.

I really don't understand this at all.

Like most if not all managers he'd be on a fixed term contract, and it doesn't matter whether you then have him working for you or not, that's up to you, the deal is
a) I will work for you for 3 years and
b) you will pay me for 3 years.

Under this sort of contract, as you can see, as long as I am ready and willing to work, then you have to pay me. If you want to get rid of me it is not relevant. You have to pay me. You pay me for 3 years. Or give me a 3 year payoff.

Deals can and often are struck, for a clean break, but ATEOTD if there is no deal then the employer simply has to pay up the contract.

The only hint in the report is thisThe Bulls declined to comment yesterday and Cramer added

Why I don't understand it is that in the case of a written contract, there is no scope for "belief" as to whether an early-termination clause is in the contract, or it isn't. Surely, it's the simplest question of fact: RTFC? Surely, it can't be that the contract was purely verbal?

All very sad, especially remembering how Franny worked for nothing for a long spell.

I would presume that under TUPE regulations the terms of a contract cannot be changed in a takeover unless specifically agreed by both parties? In which case if the clause was there under OK it remains there under Green?

It does seem a strange thing to be hazy about. I'd expect the [presumably] solicitors who drew up these contracts would take great care to NOT be ambiguous, or even, as in the case of players, some kind of standard contract with standard clauses about early dismissal. I mean, it's not as though a coach leaving mid-contract is anything new.

That said, players contracts contain stipulations about being available to play, but to the best of my knowledge, nothing about not being good enough, and if he turns up to training I assume the club must pay him. If they've signed a pup it's their mistake, not the player's.

I also read about "the contract he signed", it just doesn't make sense to then have a dispute as whether there was an early termination clause in it, or not. You'd merely have to look.

IF a contract is written, but then something additional is agreed verbally, then technically it counts, but how would you prove it?

The point in similar circumstances is an employer has no choice but to accept an existing contract warts and all, but that (if written) would be the extent of it for both parties. If some time later, the employer claims there's an additional verbal wart, then how would he know? And how would he prove it? Call the previous employers who alleged it as witnesses?

Would be interesting to know how those general observations fit the facts of this case, but I doubt we'll find out as I expect a deal surely must be done.

As the old adage goes FA, "a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on".