IF it turns out the club do have a binding agreement with Walker, and have to pay him off to get out of it, I guess it would count on next seasons cap?

Whatever was paid out would count pro rata over the term of his contract Asim, as I understand it. Depends how long a contract he was offered. I'm guessing 3 years.

But verbally, in this context, would clearly be utterly worthless. Apart from the obvious fact that the Bulls would hardly be likely to agree that yes, verbally, they did have a contract!

And there is nothing that I know of to stop Bradford signing another half dozen over-quota players. As long as by next season they correspondingly unloaded others off their quota, what is wrong with that?

Come to it, why can't they sign more players than the quota allows? It would be pretty dumb, and likely mean sanctions from the RFL, sure, but there is certainly no law against it!

The club could probably sign many quota / non fed trained players however the RFL would only allow them to register and play the number prescribed by the rules.

No.

We'd just not register him with the RFL.

Good point.


Either way, I can say with some confidence, Walker will not be a Bradford player next season.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 922464.ece doesnt seem to have any impact on the Orford deal directly - the Bulls would just have to choose which 5 of their 6 Aussies they want to register with the RFL. They will still have to honour the contract of the 6th one though.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 922464.ece doesnt seem to have any impact on the Orford deal directly - the Bulls would just have to choose which 5 of their 6 Aussies they want to register with the RFL. They will still have to honour the contract of the 6th one though.

that's under the assumption there actually is a contract between Walker and the Bulls and not just a letter of intent.

I know you can never trust anyones version of events in this kind of thing butthey issued a contract and we signed it and sent it back to them."

sounds like they are fairly certain there is a contract in place.

If Bulls did not sign it FIRST, and have stiull not signed it, then there is no written contract.

However, I suspect that a judge might well decide that, on balance of probabilities, a de facto contract was in place and that Walker was entitled to rely on it - unless there was something explict to the contrary.

I keep suggesting Bulls fans keep our powder dry on all this. I just hope this does not turn out to be another Bulls contract disaster (its already a PR disaster). That barrel of powder may be dry, but its big and well-primed, and if this goes tîts up I can see the fanbase going nuclear. Please God let it not be so.

Doesn`t a contract have to be signed by both parties? I`d assume that both sides to the contract would have a copy with both signatures, so are we supposed to believe that Walker signed in August but hasn`t bothered (or perhaps more likely, his agent hasn`t bothered) to chase up his copy of the completed paperwork?

Let`s be realistic; Walker reckons he signed a contract in August, in the meantime the club has signed a number of players for next year and one by one they have all been announced except Walker`s `deal`, which seems to have been `forgotten`?

Not the most likely scenario to be honest.

I`m not %100 on this but my understanding is that legally,a verbal contract is just as binding as a written contract. It is, for obvious reasons, just a teeny bit more difficult for a court to decide whether, and in what form, it might have existed.

I`ve forgotten who said that a verbal contract wan`t worth the paper it was printed on, some American I think, but whilst legally that might not be strictly the case, in practice I guess it might be.

A verbal agreement does legally have the same value as a written contract.

I suspect that a verbal agreement followed by a written contract being sent would constitute a contractual agreement, regardless of whether it was actually signed by the Bulls or not.

That is my understanding, the fact that he has a contract from Bradford (if he does!) would suggest quite obviously some kind of verbal agreement.

They can be verbal, sure, but that's not the question. The question is simply whether the parties have reached a legally binding agreement.

That isn't as banal as it may read. What I am saying is that the document with the word "CONTRACT" at the top is just evidence of the agreement, or the proposed agreement.

The advantage of a written contract is that it cuts down on the obvious scope for dispute as to what was and was not agreed.

The advantage of a proper contract procedure is that as long as everything is strictly specified as being subject to contract, then there can be no doubt as to exactly when an agreement is reached.

So it would depend what the agreed procedure for finalising the contract was. If it was that the contract would not become effective until both parties signed it, and if the Bulls had not agreed to sign it by a certain date, then they're OK. If things weren't legally tied down, then yes there may be scope for Walker to argue that a legally binding agreement was reached.

I can't see how there is anything at all Walker could do to affect the signing of Orford, though. That would surely be 100% between Orford and the Bulls.