Think its a case of Sheffield throwing a spanner in the works...
They is no doubt he was sacked by them, but its in their best interest to upset the apple cart for us..

I don't think its the RFL's job to sort the mess, we will not be paying Sheffield out, so in all honesty I can see him never playing for us, embarrassing really given we released pictures of him in a Bulls shirt at Odsal.

Once again no word from the club and I don't expect them to make a press release either, seems we like making announcements of things that aren't happening like Toovey, Phoenix and Chissy... very frustrating.

And this is where you are completely wrong, and why the RFL won't get involved, as if they did, it would be open season on player contracts.

Sheffield seem to be stating that, whilst he was subject to disciplinary measures, he hasn't actually been sacked. If he had, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on and wouldn't have made this statement.

Bulls' best best is to pin this on the player and/or his agent, saying that they were informed by the agent that he was free to sign. Now that they're aware he isn't, that they will of course not be signing him until he becomes free. Alternatively agree a transfer fee, but I can't see that option happening.

To me is screams of the player or his agent being the one in the wrong. Even Bulls surely wouldn't be stupid enough to know he was still under contract at Sheffield and sign him anyway (I appreciate they have shown examples of similar stupidity in the past). Whether it's down to Sheffield telling the player he was released and it not being the case, or whether it's the player/agent jumping the gun, will remain unclear. Either way, the worst Bradford will have done is not ask for proof that he had been released, and taken it on the word of the player/agent.

Come on Dane, get your emails out

What a mess.

Can't see him coming at all now.

Has he been training etc?

Maybe Bradford can split the cost for the illegal approach with the other Championship teams and the SL team who all made him offers. Unless that did not happen and his agent was telling porkies.

This is easily resolved.
1. Bulls apologise - say they were given duff information from both player and agent.
2. Chissy gets sacked anyway - they are not going to carry on paying him for doing nothing.
3. Bulls sign him.

If only it was that simple.

His contract runs out in just over a week anyway.

How do we know this?

Not according to the press release I have read from when he signed. It says he signed for a year.

Yes it does seem strange that someone would sign a contract for about 13 week

Seen it. It has an option clause on it which at a guess won't be taken up.

You've seen his contract?

Yes.

Out of interest how would you of seen it?

Who is the option in favour of? Dane or the club?

This is the first thing I thought of, after all this if its in favour of Sheff they will surely take it up as they will look a bit daft if not!

He must be either the player, the agent, rep of the club, or member of the RFL obviously.

I think your confusion is growing to epic proportions, so i'll try to help.

1. of all the people in the world, even counting Chisholm, perhaps THE most likely to know whether he was or was not free to sign elsewhere is his agent. Seeing as it is his job to find Chisholm a gig.

2. As for his agebt "telling porkies", what are you saying? That his agent out of the blue got offers from several teams, who all mistakenly and mysteriously decided randomly to make an offer to some guy already signed by some other team, regardless of the rules? And they all did that?

Or, as Occam would conclude, they had all been circulated as to Chisholm's availablity and had assumed the information was correct?

Which are you putting your money on?

3. There IS no "cost of illegal approach". IF you induce someone to breach their contract then you might have to pay damages if the other club sue you (believe me, we know) but there is no evidence at all that we did any such thing. Irrespective of that, even if we did, if as we are told he's a free agent in a few weeks anyway, any damages would be minimal and not worth bothering with. As damages in civil law simply reflect the actual cash loss and Sheffield would be hard pressed to demonstrate any cash loss.

What you may have been thinking of is a possible fine by the RFL (ie into RFL coffers, and not to Sheffield) for an illegal approach. But can you really see that? Without knowing, again my chum Occam strongly suggests that all these clubs wouldn't have made offers without being told he was free to make offers to, and so if all these clubs have been misled, then do you really think the RFL would fine them? What would be the point?

Can anyone remind me how much Shudds were fined in relation to Kopczak, and what additional penalties they faced for lying to the RFL about their approach?

You'd think the clause would include an option to extend on agreement by both parties

Usually a clause favours just one side. Largely because an agreement between both parties is just a new contract.

Or option 4. Their were no other offers and said agent used the "other offers" to try and drive up his clients value all the time while going to Bradford who he saw as an easy target and told then that Chisholm would soon be relieved of his duties at Sheffield.

Either way, you can't blame Bradford for one mans naughty behaviour,
it would be near impossible they could prove that Bradford actively encouraged him to get sacked by Sheffield..

Its all delay tactics, if Redeveready is right we have to wait a week..

More exciting would be to play a game of guess who as to who Redeveready is, first question is mine..
Do you wear glasses?