Sorry should have deleted this one.

No reason why you should have! Others may wish to comment too.

Agree, seems to me like a load of hot air too.

But surely bradford would have had to register that player with the RFL before dealing with a letter of intent or contract ?

Wrong way round. Order is:

Letter of Intent
Player Contract
Register player with RFL

Can't register a player until he is contracted to (i.e employed by) you.

(unless, of course, anyone knows different...)

So what happens if walker has signed a contract but bradford have not registered him as a RFL player. Would bradford have to pay him out ?

Correct.

Also, an interesting snippet from C1:1:7...

"Each Club shall, within forty-eight hours of signature thereof, notify the Board in writing of the conclusion of or renewal of any Contract with a Player or the signing of a contract with a Player not already on the Club’s register and shall enclose a copy of each such contract with the notification concerned."

Which, I would guess, means that no paper contract signed by both parties exists. Otherwise the Bulls would have had to have notified the RFL.

Depends if Bulls had also signed the document. If they had not, then there is no written contract. It would then be up to a court to determine whether, on balance of probabilities, a contract nevertheless existed.

If they HAD, or if a court determined that a contract existed, they yes you would assume so - except in the (unlikely?) event that such a contract contained a provision allowing it to be voidable at the club's option if the club failed to register him.

Again, unless anyone knows different...

Good info that. I only downloaded Section E cos that's more my field!

And my understanding is anyway that no contract was signed by the club, which - as you say - the above tends to support.

Instead of sponsoring a player could we buy the club s shredder?

Something I think it quite telling is that no press release was ever put out by the Bulls trumpeting the signing of Walker. Surely if it was done and dusted (as the Walker camp would like everyone to believe) there would have been an official announcement by either the Bulls or Walker?

If you had to pay him off would it count on salary cap

I would think definitely, yes.

I would think not.

Seems clear he has not been registered as a player with the RFL, so is not part of the salary cap spend.

Had he been given a contract, then as Tristram pointed out above he would have HAD to have been registered. Ergo...no contract can have been signed.

If no contract has been signed, then its hard to see how he can have a claim for a pay-off. (A claim against his agent for gross negligence maybe...?)

Ergo, any pay-off would have to be non-contractual, for a non-registered player. And therefore has no bearing on the salary cap.

That would be my take on this hypothetical scenario anyway.

Walker claims contract HAS been signed: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/141 ... rford-deal

Walker claims contract HAS been signed: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/141 ... rford-deal

A small video clip of an interview with Walker where he says he's intending to play for us and honour his contract: www.foxsports.com.au/league/vide ... 55,00.html I'd feel a lot more reassured if we could find out what the club's stance on this is

A small video clip of an interview with Walker where he says he's intending to play for us and honour his contract: www.foxsports.com.au/league/vide ... 55,00.html I'd feel a lot more reassured if we could find out what the club's stance on this is

Quote ="Fully"Walker claims contract HAS been signed: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/141 ... rford-deal'" From the article: "We signed a letter of agreement, the club issued a contract and we signed it and sent it back to them" I'd be interested to know what the agent meant by the word 'issued'. If the Bulls made it clear that the document sent was for information/discussion then it should be alright.

Quote ="Fully"Walker claims contract HAS been signed: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/141 ... rford-deal'" From the article: "We signed a letter of agreement, the club issued a contract and we signed it and sent it back to them" I'd be interested to know what the agent meant by the word 'issued'. If the Bulls made it clear that the document sent was for information/discussion then it should be alright.

[urlhttp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/4747330.Walker___s_threat_is_no_worry_for_Bulls/[/url

little bit of comment from club even if is no comment



not very good reporting when the guy cant even get the number of quota spots correct and misses a major signing of the list

in fact there was actually a quote from hood that we werent interested in walker and it was all rumours round about time sam left iirc.

But the "we're not interested bit" might have been Hood not wanting to over play his hand and make Walker and his agent think they could squeeze out more cash from the Bulls

Yes I thought that odd too. No mention of him as a Bulls player since he supposedly signed in AUGUST!

This kind of thing must happen a lot. Players are offered an amount by a club and often end up signing for another in the end.
If the Bulls are found to be legally bound by their negotiations then doesn't this set a precedent that any such deals in the future are set in concrete as soon as any serious contract discussions have taken place?
I'm not sure player agents would like to be in that situation as they often use them to up player deals between different clubs who are after the same player.

You'd think if Walker had signed for us he may have put something on his twitter, anybody read anything ?

There may have been some confidentiality clauses preventing him announcing anything...and if he'd signed his side of the contract then he'd be thinking he was bound by it (if that makes sense).

We need to hear the words. "I have in my hand an employment contract, signed by Herr Hood himself."

Promises in a love letter are not legally binding, AFAIK anyway.

In construction, where letters of intent are commonplace, it is usual (or good practice) to limit your liability contractually, & consequently financially, by specifically mentioning the extent of the LOI & stating that the parties will not be entering into a 'formal contract' until some future stage. So even if there is no formal contract signed I would say there could be some costs incurred if the LOI instructed Walker to do something that has led him to some expense (though what that could be I have no idea).

Whatever, if there has been a LOI I don't think it reflects well on the Bulls. Just as Bulls fans would not look kindly if Walker pulled out & it was later disclosed there was a letter of intent in place.

His latest Tweet is

" @richardMathers yeah mate, it'll be sorted, i signed the contract in august.....6 doesnt got in 2 5 with the imports "

he seems fairly sure that there was\is a contract.

though if that were true why hasnt he got his visa yet, there saying 4\5 weeks for orford.

But was it signed by the Bulls? That's the crux.