Thought he'd already been announced as a signing by quins?

Sammut will only be off quota for 1 year, makes you wonder whether Bradford would have given him a longer deal with hindsight?

Can see the RFL not allowing Sammut to be off quota. If they dont cant we just offer him a new deal?

If they dont let him be off quota then offering him a new deal wouldnt help as he'd be signing it as a bulls player not a crusaders one. The dispensations are only for crusaders players signing their first deal for another club. Presumably we've already registered his contract with RFL before announcing the signing. If we'd known the dispensation was pending then presumably we'd have at least put an option for extra years in the contract. Would be petty in extreme of RFL to not grant the dispensation to sammut but I won't be at all surprised if they dont.

Obeying their own rules is not "petty". When you buy something and are happy with the price, but next day there's 33% off, would you go back to the shop saying how unfair it all was?

The RFL may give the Bulls a special dispensation for the dispensation, but the fact seems to be we signed him pre-dispensation so the rules as they were then do apply.

It does add fuel to the fire of which way the Bulls are thinking, though, if we must now presume that they signed him on the basis that he WOULD take up a quota spot.

It all depends on the wording of the dispensation. IF it was phrased as players signed for crusaders for 2012 season at the time they withdrew their license application then we're probably ok. If it was players under contract at time dispensation was announced then we're not. Pretty certain we werent aware of the dispensation otherwise we'd have put an option for further years into the contract.
Nothing to stop us getting same advatage as other teams though if theres anyone in crusaders squad who would improve us and would otherwise need a quota spot. hanbury,witt and chan spring immediately to mind.

Have the Bulls missed a trick here by only signing Sammut for 1 year?
If he has a good year with you next season then you will re-sign him but he will then be one of your quota players

Would it have been a gamble worth taking in offering him a 3 year deal?

Maybe he only wanted to sign for a year, plan to go home or see what else comes up?

dispensation wasnt announced until after we'd signed him.

OK mate I've clearly missed that information, Although i hope that you could potentially extend this contract and under the RFL's generous terms, lets call it "Job Security" shall we

Michael witt could also be on his way to the Grattan Stadium..

I'm telling you, 1 to 13 next season - all half backs.

And we'll still be playing one out rugby!

Interesting that MP clearly sees him as a utility player, but surely he will have been signed to play in the halves? We have two decent full backs and two decent hookers.

I've heard he's arriving on sept 4th

not sure if its been mooted already , but if the RFL said no , what would happen if we cancelled Sammut's contract by mutual agreement and then re-signed him ?

dont think it would help as the concession only kicks in for the first contract the crusaders players sign after leaving crusaders. assuming we've already registered him with RFL then it doesnt matter whether hes here for a day or five years, hes a bradford player. we'd be cancelling his contract and signing a player whose last club was bradford not crusaders.

It'll be same as the James Evans business - we have to let him go due to quota rules, then shortly afterwards the RFL change them. Or the Harris debacle, where we breach the cap two years in a row because the salary cap was not "live", and straight afterwards we get a "live" salary cap. Great timing again...

And here we go:



Translation: "Contract had not been signed; contrary to any impressions that might have been given to the contrary. Therefore it should fall within the RFL dispensation".

But according to this:

[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/14321974.stm[/url

"Potter also revealed that the deal to bring Sammut to West Yorkshire was done before the decision by Crusaders on Tuesday to withdraw their Super League application."

That could be the killer bit IMO. Think it depends when Sammuts contract was registered with RFL tbh. If it was before crusaders withdrew their application think we're out of luck. If after we should be ok.

The flaw in your argument is the fact that he's not actually a Bradford player until his contract starts. I've no idea of the dates but obviously his current deal at Crusaders must last until the end of this season, and until such time as it ends he remains a Crusaders player not a Bull.

It is so predictable this, we are going to miss out on the exemption, you know we are.

It's inevitable.

[urlhttp://www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/content/Archive/3947/Bradford%20Bulls%20V%20Leeds%20Rhinos[/url
Penalty try awarded against us for stripping the ball over the line and, as night follows day, for 2008 the rule was changed to just be a penalty. [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_rugby_league#2000s[/url

good point well made Bulliac. hadnt thought of that aspect.

we should all e-mail the RFL.