Here we go...

[urlhttp://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/former-manly-captain-matt-orford-desperate-to-leave-bradford-bulls-and-return-to-nrl/story-e6frexnr-1225937358717[/url

again

Looks like Duckett is earning his spurs. All the right moves and all the right quotes.

Anyone else thinking we may be on the receiving end of a little Karma?

We had all the hoo-ha around Chris Walker (is he, or is he not coming) [i[uand if[/u[/i we did shaft Walker (to get Orford) you have to wonder if we're getting a little payback.

I don't think anyone really wants Orford to leave, however, if we can get something for the remainder of his contract (which would be hoped so, given the amount of interest for the guy in the NRL), and obtain a suitable replacement/s then it might not be that bad.

If however he leaves us in the lurch and we don't get replacements it's going to cost us a lot. 8th place will become the target rather than a top 4 one. Any failure on the first target with Orford and we would hopefully still be in the play-offs. If we aim 8th without him and fail, well, the season tickets for the following year would need to be cheaper still!!!!

If Potter knew that Orford was leaving, you'd have hoped we may have signed some higher calibre players than we have (not to say the guys signed won't do well), but you do have to wonder if we'd have managed to obtain some better players by being able to spread Orford's reported "higher level" salary around.

It's all still hearsay, but lets hope that it's sorted soon. Ok, there's plenty of time to go till the start of the new season but at this rate we're bedding two new halfbacks in (again) rather than just one.

I can't imagine what you're basing that on to be honest. If Orford leaves (and it still is IF, of course) then we are back to what we had for the second half of last season at halfback. I can't seriously imagine that anyone on here, let alone at the club, would regard that as satisfactory. I don't know what the club actually [iknows
[/i about Matt's current status, only what they let on, which isn't much, but I would hope some contingency plan is in play, and to be fair I can't seriously imagine there isn't. We'll certainly be very fortunate to pick up a class scrum half at this stage though.

That's what I'm relying on and why I am not worrying. I just can't imagine that the club will not have some sort of contingency in place. The mention of the potential of up to 4 more signings that keeps getting mentioned in the T&A would support that. The fact that they aren't being announced yet suggests they are dependant on the Orford situation being resolved.

If we get two recognised half backs who aren't "world beaters" we'll still be better off than what we had for most of last year which was no Orford and non-half backs filling in (i.e. Sykes, Addy, Kearney, L'Estrange).

I'm still hopeful that if Orford goes we'll end up with one class half back and another who is a solid performer and will complement the rest of the signings well.

Well if we're basing things on Connor's recent article (which I'm sure has plenty of truth behind it), then it seems like the club are hoping for a hb pairing of Pryce and Hanbury.
But there's obviously a very good chance we'll end up with neither of those players, and I'm not sure what would happen if that was the case.

We did not shaft Walker.

The fact is, we offered him a contract in good faith. The club then got a number of calls from NRL clubs asking if we were aware that Walker's agent was offering him to them. Also, while players like L'Estrange and Hall were in almost constant contact with the club about things like schools for the kids, good places to live, where's the training ground, when do I have to be there for pre-season and the 1001 other things you need to sort out if you're moving yourself and your family to the other side of the world, there was no contact from Walker or his agent. There's then the fact that come 4th November when the team was due to return for pre-season training, Walker had not even APPLIED for a visa to come to Bradford.

Very interesting.

We must hope, I guess. The problem remains though, that all the out of contract halves (of any quality) won't hang around waiting to see what Matt Orford decides to do, even if they want to come to a club which hasn't made the play-offs in two years and, unless we're very very lucky and someone becomes unexpectedly available late on we are going to end up with something less than a top quality scrum half.

For stand off we still have Brett Kearney, though he's not [ireally[/i a halfback. The problem remains though, that halfbacks operate as pairs, and, at best, should complement each other, so without knowing who is scrum half it's difficult to sort out your stand off. So, if Orford goes, at this stage the chances of obtaining a similar quality replacement are slimmer than slim and so are our chances of having a decent pairing for next year. We do have some decent creative players and it's looking like we might be relying on them to fill in again, certainly not the situation we hoped to be in.

Looks like Southernwood will be getting plenty of games.

Good news IMO.

Good news if it's Southernwood with a top Stand off but ATM we haven't got one.

Personally if everything gets tied up and the first choice half back pairing is 6. Pryce and 7. Hanbury (as looks likely once all the juggling is finished) with Southernwood and Addy as cover it's better than last year.

Potter by the looks of him isn't afraid to put youngsters in straight off into the places left uncovered without forcing everyone else to play out of position which was one of my biggest complaints about macca.

Up to a point Mick but it isn't in his, or our, best interests that he is the main scrum half, and I'm certain the coaching staff wouldn't abuse the kid. It would be totally unfair to dump all that responsibility on a youngster like that.

Its looking like Orford could be on his way to Parramatta according to the T&A.. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _contract/ Hopefully we will negotiate the best deal we can and use the dosh to buy Pryce out of his contract at Saints, and bring in a Scrum Half...From somewhere!

Its looking like Orford could be on his way to Parramatta according to the T&A.. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _contract/ Hopefully we will negotiate the best deal we can and use the dosh to buy Pryce out of his contract at Saints, and bring in a Scrum Half...From somewhere!

www.1eyedeel.com/ found this whilst trolling, more fuel to add to the Orford bonfire

www.1eyedeel.com/ found this whilst trolling, more fuel to add to the Orford bonfire

1. Is it a train smash if Orford doesn't return?
2. So what if he's homesick, Sydney v Bradford. I would be. Personal happiness isn't about money.
3. The club are playing out their legal role. Logical and expected
4. Orford has never been outstanding. For anyone.
5. The club are making contingency plans to replace. Logical
6. The pious views of some regarding contractual obligations is laughable given our Harris behaviour.
7. Pryce and Hanbury or other connotations mooted is far superior to Orford/Sykes/Kearney.
8. It's abundantly clear that "demanding" release/transfer fees in actuality, doesn't tend to happen. It's merely a face saving issue. Perhaps perceiving it as instead saving nigh on 200k p.a would be the standpoint to adopt.

I don't see it being much more complicated.

Seems a sensible and balanced view to be fair, though I'm not sure just what we can do if Orford simply doesn't turn up for training. As the web site points out most decent players will have contracts sorted by now so the chances of getting a ready made (and equivalent) scrum half are pretty low, unless Parramatta have someone.

I've always said that if someone doesn't want to play there's little to be gained in trying to force him, so I'm not going to change that view now. Orford isn't coming out of this with much credibility though; he's an adult and has signed a contract for three years (and just two years left, so he's not exactly signed his life away, and even if he had there was no gun to his head, AFAIK), IF he'd had the decency to be honest about this and said he couldn't settle before he left to recover from his injury, then it could have been done quite amicably and a replacement could have been arranged months ago, long before all the deals were finalised.

I've really no idea how the law applies in Australia, but I'm guessing he can't play for Parramatta unless he gets clearance from the Bulls, I would also assume that some kind of law about breaking contracts exists in Australia (hopefully a reciprocal one with the UK) which would allow some kind of remedy in law against the Eels and possibly against Orford. Not that I'd particularly expect us to go down that route but it would be a reasonable lever to get some compensation out of the Aussie club, particularly given Orford's behaviour which has left the Bulls in the lurch more than somewhat.

With regard to compensation, I'm not sure whether this is employment law or law of contract (though I've no doubt someone can confirm). In the contracts that I deal with you can not have penalty clauses, only an amount for a pre-estimate of the loss that would accrue for a breach of the contract (in my case delay of completion). In Orford's case would the Bulls have to demonstrate their possible loss had he not fulfilled his contract, which is obviously difficult?

We should have learned all that. When we were playing the Parramatta role with Harris, as you said, Leeds made the right noises, but clearly "demanding" fees etc didn't happen. They were clearly happy to save nigh on 200k p.a. for Harris's wage, and just did a bit of posturing to save face. They didn't sue us, and near on bankrupt us, nor did they sue Harris.

I imagined it all.

If there is something in the contract then that would obviously apply, but I have no knowledge of the contents.

If he breaks his contract then the Bulls can claim from him what it costs them to obtain a replacement. Obviously that wouldn't include much if anything by way of salary, as that's swings and roundabouts, but there would for a start undoubtedly be administrative costs in acquiring a replacement player. Where bigger sums may come into it is what if his replacement were also from Aus, and we had to pay transfer/signing on fees? Seems to me that is a loss we could sue Orford for.

From memory weren't Leeds also suing Harris for all the millions they allegedly lost that they were going to make from marketing his image?

Not that I have any clue how far that got either. It may have settled or it may still be ongoing. I suppose if it did conclude it would all be confidentiality-clause wrapped up so we probably never will know.

I'm not suggesting there are any 'penalty clauses', to be honest I wouldn't think there would be. So far as I know when contracts are discussed, the term "standard" SL contract is mentioned as though there is some template.

There are laws about contracts (probably civil, rather than criminal) which deal with compensation, as the Bulls know only too well. In truth I don't think it would be difficult to show loss, particularly with the player not being upfront in the first place. If he had said "I want out" when he went back to Australia then I would suggest not, but as it is, the club will be hit by the loss of their main playmaker (just when they are trying to sell season tickets) and will be very fortunate to sign a player of similar quality at this late stage. Those two facts alone would show a de facto loss, surely.

Don't suppose there is any chance he was 'cohersed'?

Although there are similarities between the Harris and Orford deals there are many differences too.

Harris, on the nod from his legal team, was the one who said he didn't have a contract which is why Caisley went in for him (as well as to p off El Presidente). I think, given the view of Harris and his legal team, it's fair to say that it can't have been a clear cut decision as to whether he had a binding contract with Leeds, which isn't the case with Orford who knows full well he does have a binding contract.

In truth Leeds didn't want Harris back, with Burrow and McGuire taking the world by storm why would they? If only we had waited until Leeds said "oh actually I don't think we'll be taking that option". We might have had to pay a small fee or maybe not. However, with Orford it is quite different and I don't think there is any doubt that we want him to return, 'cos if he doesn't there will be a big hole in team.

From what I remember of the T&A reports at the time, I think Leeds were suing Harris, along with the Bulls who were also suing Harris, and bringing up the rear Harris who was suing his legal team (without whom, none of this would probably have left the ground).

I don't think it is helpful to overanalyse the comparison. The result is that a player under contract to one club was personally sued for a lot of money by that club for breaking the contract. (though we don't know what became of the case)


Not relevant. Leeds' case depended on them claiming, in legal papers, that they wanted him back and Bradford foiled them. You may think they lied in Court papers but I wouldn't recommend it.


You've a bad memory, then. I never heard of the Bulls suing Harris, nor did I ever read any report of Harris "suing his legal team".

I was given to understand that Harris's Agent at that time was a Solicitor, Caisley is a Solicitor who in his haste to put one over Caddick more than Hetherington ignored the fine print! Also apparently that if nothing had happened for a further 6 weeks Harris would have been a free agent and cost nothing save what he negotiated with the Club!

FA both were mentioned as 'options' in newspaper reports. dont think anything ever came of it but they were definitely mentioned at the time.