I will be interested to hear what the club have to say, we've so far only heard one side of the story. However as has been previously mentioned it does not enhance the image of the Bulls if what Walker's camp are alleging is true. It doesn't sound like the Orford deal is genuinely going to be affected

but this story could affect the recruitment of players in the future. Orr will be unlikely to want to do business with us in the near future now. I just hope the Bulls have got this one right, otherwise it could be very damaging for the club.

Can imagine any contract negotiations with Kearney will be fun!

This just sounds typical of the luck our club has had over the past few years.

Even a payout woud annoy me!

AFAIK a verbal contract can be written or spoken.

Oral contract is just spoken.

It is legal, but it's more a case of proving it..

I'm sure others have said this as there's 7 pages I can't be bothered reading (again!), but if Walker thinks he can do this, win, and then come and play for Bradford next year, he's in for a bad year. The players won't be pleased, the club staff won't be pleased and the fans won't be pleased. He could end up being the first new player to be given a round of boos on his debut.

If he does come to play with us I expect him to be gone by at least round 15.

At this moment in time Walker is probably more interested in AU$ to cover his salary next month! And, frankly, who can blame him (either the Bulls, his agent, or both have let him down).

Seems pretty clear from the reporting that his agent is after a "severance" payment, I'd say?

Me too. But will we have to payout. I mean, does Walker or Orr have any proof of any agreement by us. I hope not.

Yeah must admit I feel for Walker. Whatever the ins and outs he has been badly let down by someone and is now unemployed.

Speculation is futile until we hear something from the club. And even then, may still be.

According to the press reports, his agent seems to be alleging - or implying - that Bulls and Walker signed a Letter of Intent (not legally binding in itself); then Bulls sent Walker a contract, which he signed and returned; then Bulls either did not sign the contract or if signed did not register it with the RFL.

None of us on here know enough of the facts to determine the accuracy or otherwise of the above; and unless there is indeed a signed contract (and if there is, why hasn't Walker's agent been flashing in front of the Oz media?) then it would be down to a judge or an arbitrator to determine whether sufficient had already taken place to establish contractual relations (remember, a contract need not be in writing for something like this). (FA amend if necessary?).

Makes you wonder if it is the Letter of Intent that his agent is referring to? But, as I said, speculation is futile!

I'm hoping Hood hasn't fooked up big time on this, you've probably got a better idea than I have, but would a letter of intent be part of a contractual agreement, which could end up meaning we have to pay him part of or all the contract off ?

A letter of intent would normally specifically state that it was NOT intended to establish a contractual relationship, except maybe for specified clauses which ARE to be binding (e.g. confidentiality),

your optimistic, I wouldnt expect him to survive pre-season

walker may be a better player than nero. however walker requires a full quota spot, nero only uses a non-fed trained spot so losing nero wouldnt allow us to honor walkers contract. hth

I seriously can't see why he would want to come here if the fans, players and management dont want him here. I know its all about £ at the end of the day, but he will be hated if he does somehow stop us signing Orford.

wouldnt expect he'll be unemployed for long though. expect he'll just re-surrect the original move to crusaders, which granted probably wont be for as much dosh. can see us ending up having to pay him the difference between our contract offer and his crusaders deal tbh

Yeah I'd expect that's exactly what they're after in reality. Kind of a "take this money and stop trying to block Orford" kind of deal.

The idea of him actually pulling on a Bulls shirt after this seems highly unlikely.

Thats if there are any contractual legalities that can be used, it could be Walkers Agent dropped the ball big time when the Orford rumours were getting off the ground in Oz and did nothing to follow it up, naively believing they were just rumours?? Its to be hoped that Peter Hood didn't go into this rashly, the Walker contract seemed to be taking a long time anyways so there must have been problems that were never resolved before Orford became available. I'm hoping the lack of a statement from the Club means there are just making sure it is a smokescreen and that they won't get burnt by the flames of litigation!

My suspicion is that this from Oz was unexpected and caught the club by surprise. Remember the board are all part time, and there is really only Ryan and Stuart running the show on a day-to-day basis (God help them for that thankless job). When faced with a campaign-by-media, it can take a bit longer to get your own ducks in a row and appropriate advice taken and decisions made. Maybe Walker's agent realised this?

Those of you expecting an immediate response form the club: if my deduction is correct, then that is an unreasonable expectation. Been there, done that got the tee-shirt - you need time, otherwise you knee-jerk and potentially screw up, like Hetherington did that time and had to retract and apologise.

But...speculation remains futile!

Simply seems that communication between the board and its transfer targets has been poor. Looks like Walker was pretty much promised a move until the Orford situation came upon you.

All in all its a bit of an unproffessional mess.

It may or may not be. But would it not be professional to wait and hear both sides of the story before passing judgment?

In fairness yes I agree.......lets be honest even as a Leeds fan it's more than likely to be the press stirring a lot up with Walkers agent fanning the flames.

Is a letter of intent the same in sporting contracts as it would be in say construction? As a sub contractor if I were to be given a letter of intent for a contract from the main contractor who then gave the actual contract to another sub contractor and I had occurred expenses as a result, by procuring materials, extra labour etc then I would be entitled to a return of my costs as a result. Is this similar to the bulls situation? Not that it should or would stop Orford playing.

Can't see what the problem is to be honest. If there is an issue here surely its a matter for the courts and not the rugby league authorities. Litigation is an expensive business and the only guaranteed winners are the lawyers. I can't see Walker or his agent pursuing this one to be honest!

See my reply on Southstander. And yes, agree totally with your last sentence.