Not really so.

Bulls have paid a termination fee. That means the decision was not his, at least not totally his. My understanding was that he was looking to just quietly knuckle down and prove he could do the job. The winner needs to be a player who cried off and went running back homesick to mummy (see the OP). Glenn was far from that, even though he had ample reason to want to go home this time last year, having just suffered a personal tragedy.

So it was his wifes decision?

Doesn't that make it worse?

So why did he have his contract 'terminated'?

Nothing to do with the fact his wife wanted to go home then?

Pretty well any Bulls supporter will give you what they will be assuming is the reason.

A club does not make a settlement payment because a player's wife says she wants to go home?

I'll wager that if I asked 20 Bradford supporters the same question I would get 20 different answers.

That is assuming I could find 20 people willing to admit to being Bradford supporters of course.

Clearly not a poster worth continuing debate with, since he seems to have little to contribute on various threads other than ridicule.

And there kids, is a classic example of a 'person who knows nothing but likes to speculate quite a bit picks up his ball and goes home' type reply.

Does a termination fee count on the cap?

Sorry.

I was forgetting that 'being on these forums since inception' automatically qualifies a person as someone who knows everything about all aspects about Rugby league. Ever.

Maybe when you have finished educating us poor less fortunate people about the important stuff such as what you claim to 'know' about what may or may not be in Matt Orfords contract you could try and find a solution for less important stuff such as a cure for cancer, a solution to solve the third world debt and find a way to stop the apocalypse that threatens to wipe our lives out on December 21st 2012?

Yes - Operational rules Part E1 section 6.1

There are two exceptions - one to do with payments made to players retiring through "disability". The other is the unclear one - 6.1.4 - as it relates to players who leave before the first Salary Cap Relevant Match. I have always read this to refer to players who have NOT YET PLAYED a (Salary Cap) match for the club. And it is not fully clear to me whether the exemption applies for the CURRENT SC year or just to future ones (the word "subsequent" is used). I believe some others interpret it as applying to a player who has not yet played a (Salary Cap) match THAT SALARY CAP YEAR (i.e from 1/12). If it is the former, then Bulls will have to spread the termination cost over the rest of his contract period for SC purposes. If the latter (be nice if it was, but I am sceptical) then there might be a better outcome. If anyone is more clear on this specific point, I would be interested to hear their take on it.

Brilliant, cheers.

Michael Crocker : A man before his time then