I doubt the club would just decide to ship him out to get money

I suspect what happened was

1. His agent said that he wanted to open negotiations on a new contract, for two years, from the end of 2012
2. The club intimated they would be looking for a one year deal at that point
3. Agent has contacts with other SL clubs and puts out feelers
4. Hull show an interest, and make contact with the Bulls
5. Hull negotiate fee with club, and personal terms with player via agent

If it happened like that, then Andy Lynch could quite easily say 'I wasn't looking to leave, in fact I wanted a new contract at Bradford' and be telling the truth. But at the same time, the events played out in a way that meant that the club were left with little option but to sell, to avoid having an out of contract player at the end of next season.

THat's how it seems to be increasingly happening in sport - footballers are rarely allowed to enter into the final year of a contract, for fear of them walking away for no fee. Hence Arsenal deciding to sell Nasri to Man City this Summer. And, of course, agents have a vested interest in promoting these transfers, as they get a decent cut of the fee.

From what I heard he asked for another year but the club declined saying that nobody was getting an extension at the moment. He would've stayed if his contract had been extended to 2013.

I'll be keeping my powder dry on this until we see who his replacement is going to be.

Depends who they are IMO, players like Burgess and Whitehead and other quality youngsters should be negotiated well in advance of the middle of the season that their contracts finish. They should be given long contracts aswell. I reckon about 18 months before their current deal runs out, like Leeds and Hudds do, and tie them up for 4-5 years aswell.

Spot on imo.

Wigan didn't hang around with Tomkins, Hudds didn't with McGilvary etc.

Lynch's replacement has been identified but cant be finalised until the quota issue is sorted.

Hope this doesn't hurt us like the Orford issue did last year

which quota issue? jeffries or sammut. Bit worrying if were basing our recruitment on possibility of sammut getting dispensation unless club have been told something already. If we wait and hope he'll get it then he doesnt we're left scrabbling round for players late in off season when everyones sorted for next season.

This isn't a criticism of the club with regards to selling Lynch as I can see why they've done it and if the right replacement is identified as kingmonkey suggests then I'm in favour. However, why does the club appear so passive in these matters? Where is the 'Hood demands decision from RFL' headline in the RLW? At times we're so meek it's pitiable.

tend to think its a case of we're saying what we can publically. Seem to remember when Hull KR were discussing Willie Masons status with RFL, they had to resort to legal means to get RFL to agree with Hull KRs interpretation of the quota rules. Suspect we may be in same boat and either going through legal channels or waiting on a RFL board meeting for a decision. In which making a fuss in press would maybe be counter-productive.
Think our case will be that all players registered with Crusaders at time of dispensation are entitled to it. Sammut would qualify in that case as he doesnt become a Bulls player until Nov. RFL may be trying to argue that dispensations only apply to Crusaders players who were going to be playing for Crusaders in 2012 season at time that Crusaders withdrew their application. If that interpretation is correct then we're on dodgy ground as Sammuts contract was probably registered by then. Did any of crusaders other overseas players agree a deal to move clubs before Sammut and did they get the dispensation?

Something I just noticed while reading hull board that could have a bearing on our recruitment if correct. Apparently heremeai (SP) has been granted fed trained status by RFL because he played for Leigh in 2006 before the non-fed quota was brought in in 2008. I always understood the fed trained exemptions were only for players in SL when the the non fed quota was introduced and they lost the exemption as soon as they left SL. IF RFL are going to allow any player who had a stint in English leagues (not just SL as leigh were in NL when heremaia played for them) before 2008 an exemption to be fed trained then that potentially opens up a lot of options in terms of recruitment, particularly when jeffries passport comes through.

Why do I get the feeling that this is going to go pear shaped?

Don't really think it will, as we only need one out of two to come through. To be honest, my gut feeling about Sammutt is that we won't get it (no actual reason, but it would be just our luck) Jeffries is done though and just awaiting the paperwork as I understand it.

Why can't we just de-register Jeffries, sign this over-seas replacement Prop (if it is a Prop) then re-register Jeffries when he gets his passport in Nov/Dec in time for next season??

Then we can deal with the Sammut issue separately...

Because Jeffries on his own doesnt allow us to sign an overseas player unless we can find one who's classed as fed trained.

yes, per SB's 2012 squad stickered at top, BJ is overseas but no non-fed, sammut is not overseas but is non-fed. So at the moment they complement each other to make up the 5 overseas and 5 non fed. take one out of the equation eg BJ passport and you can only replace him with an overseas but fed trained player. So the best situation is that they both get off their respective quotas, the worst is BJ gets off quota Sammut doesnt, as an overseas but fed trained player will be difficult to find. What is Glenn, I think someone posted earlier, and he is supposed to be applying for a passport, but he could be overseas but not nonfed, if so would be signable whichever of him or BJ got their passport first, and perhaps Jamie move up to prop as some are calling for. dont we make it hard for ourselves!!!

I still don't understand this overseas/non-fed/fed/non-overseas business. What am I?

dont worry about it, took me ages to get my head round it too.

You've at least done something I have'nt yet.
I'm well stuffed in understanding where we are or might be in signing new players.
Can anyone explain it basic detail to me what the consequences are -
eg:
If Sammut gets his xxxx then - then we could sign xxxxx type of player
If BJ gets his xxxx then - we could sign xxxxx type of player.

If sammut gets his dispensation we can sign an overseas player who would have been a kokoak under the old system. Basically Nrl players who qualify for a eu or pacific islands passport.
If Jeffries gets his passport we can sign any overseas players who was trained in english superleague ( or has a dispensation because they were over here in 2008 when quota rules changed)
If we get passport and dispensation then we could sign one player from anywhere. Tricky bit to understand is that the two quota run alongside each other and 1 player exam take a spot on both quotas.

Excellent!!!
Well explained

you can have five overseas and five non-fed trained players in your squad. These are separate quotas.

we have four players (Heath Brett Adrian Keith) that are both overseas and non fed trained in our squad AND

one player that is overseas (BJ) and one player that is non fed (Sammut), which completes the five and five quotas.

So when BJ gets his passport we can sign an overseas but fed trained player, if Sammut gets exempt from non fed we can sign a non-fed trained but non-overseas player (as Mat points out, this could be a Kolpak player).

And if they both come off their respective quotas, we can sign a player that is both overseas and non fed trained.

...I think. about right Mat?

ps posted this last night but didnt see that Mat had posted already so it didnt actually post up then. One minor correction to Mats, its Kolpak not kokoak, the name of a Slovak handball player. The Kolpak ruling extends the Bosman ruling to countries that have an association agreement with EU countries, so quotas cannot be placed on workers from such countries. It applies mainly to countries that are members of the ACP (African Carribean and Pacific Group of States formed in 1975) and includes South Africa, Tonga and Samoa. the Cook Islands are part of ACP, but before you ask the question Lulia has played for them through the parentage ruling, not because he has a passport, he is an Aussie, in the same way that England are trawling as many Aussies that qualify.

bloody iphone!.



one addition to above. If both sammut and jeffries get dispensation/passport we have a couple of options. we could use the quota spots free'd up together to sign a Aus/NZ NRL player (what was classed as an overseas player under old system). or we could use the non fed spot to sign a kolpak player and use the overseas spot freed up by jeffries to sign an overseas player with a non-fed exemption (basically overseas players playing in SL since 2008 when quota came in eg morrison)

Two complications to add into mix though.

1. hull appear to have got heremaia a non fed trained exemption despite him being in NRL when non-fed system was introduced. only reason I can see is a stint for leigh in NL in 2006. If thats correct then anyone who played in english rugby prior to 2008 should also qualify for a non fed exemption - big can of worms if correct.

2. If rumours that morrison had signed for crusaders are true then he could qualify for dispensation on his overseas status too and wouldnt count on either quota. Depends on RFLs interpretation of the dispensation. was it granted to players signed for crusaders when dispensation was announced or does it only apply to players contracted to crusaders for 2012 season. This is issue thats probably having biggest effect on our recruitment as it potentially affects sammut and morrisons status. (assuming morrison is a target).

if Morrison is a target then this might be pertinent;

[url=http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport/wakefield-wildcats/wakefield_wildcats_skipper_morrison_states_super_league_ambition_1_3693092Morrison off quota[/url

[i"I have been taken off the quota which is good and if I don’t get anything with Wakefield, hopefully I will be able to work a deal out somewhere else."[/i

Pretty certain that one way or otherorrison won't be on quota. Whether that's down to getting a passport or cos he'd signed for cru is anyones guess. Bigger problem for Morrison is he's been over here for 5 yrs so has to apply for permanent leave to stay which could take months. Suspect he will be a late addition to squad if we do go for him.

So, if I've got this right, when Jeffries gets his passport, we can then sign Morrison, right?