Yes I agree, but £200,000 is not enough without a player aswell, and we certainly want first refusal.

That is a football thing. I don't think that can work outside of football. In football it is a mid-contract option. ie the player we bought from you is 2yrs into a 5yr deal but we don't want him anymore. you have first option, the asking price is £3mill, are you interested?

In RL, if Sam went to Oz for 3rs then wanted to return, when his 3yrs are up, the contract is over and he is a free agent. there is no contract to insert a clause into at that point. If he went to RU, that would be different....

Maybe this would be a good time to point out that:

1. The clause could not be put in Sam's existing contract - since that would be being cancelled by mutual agreement.

2. The clause could not be in Sam's new Contract with the Oz club - since that is between Sam and that club and Bulls would not be party to it.

3. The clause could not be in a separate contract between the Bulls and the Oz club - because that would be between the two clubs and Sam - the person affected - would not be party to it an therefore not bound by a clear restraint of trade (at the very least).

The only likely scenario would surely be if Sam signed a separate contract with the Bulls, along the lines of "in consideration of you agreeing to release me from my (playing) contract early, without seeking compensation from me, I agree that should I seek to return to play in SL in the next x years I agree to enter into a new playing contract with Bradford, should they elect to offer me one. I further agree that Bradford may give me a contract and then themselves accept an offer from another SL club for which they will be entitled to seek a transfer fee".

Provided this separate agreement was of clear benefit to Sam (and you'd probably have to show serious financial as well as personal benefit) and everything else was well nailed-down and interlocking, and he was in no way "cohersed" by anyone, our friend Mr Justice Gray would probably rule that the contract was enforceable and not a restraint of trade.

Now...does anyone recognise a recent parallel with that scenario?

we might not even want him back at Bradford after his stint in the NRL?

Yes thats true, but if he has to re-sign with us, we could sell him on then.