Always suspicious of a character when they are named after player who's only UK club was Leeds

He did exacly the same to melbourne before joining Manly!

Re-read what I wrote and when you have interpreted it correctly, then we can chat once again.

Just come through to me on my ipod NRL news site.Under the Headline, "Rebel Yell for Homesick Orford"......"The Melbourne Rebels Super Rugby Union franchise has expressed a formal but firm interest in Matt Orford" if he signed for them..would we get any commpo?

not sure tbh. If he was switching codes then us holding his league registration would be worthless. Guess we'd be looking at legal action against orford personally to have any hope of compensation. Not sure club would go down that route. Unfortunately could see Orford going to reds as isnt that club he's lined up his coaching job for when he retires from playing?

It seems very clear to me. It seems thoroughly dependent on any club requiring his services. If they are unwilling to pay x amount that we are asking for, or reach a compromise then they won't sign him. Or we realise how much we will save annually in not paying his salary. At the moment it's a p!issing contest. Nobody is in a strong position. What did Leeds actually receive for one of the best forwards in the world who was only 23? Because you can guarantee if it was anything over a quid, GH would be shouting about it from Cardigan Road. What they invested in Hardaker was likely from saved cap payment to a fairly high earner not a transfer fee.

As has been pointed out, him going to Union may well void any "obligated" payment in any case.

Surely you cant just go to union and disregard any contract otherwise this would have happened before? Les, Hape etc all had agreed releases didnt they?

they were both a better class of person imo. At the end of the day the only 'hold' we have over Orford is his league registration. If he went to union then only option we would have would be a civil case for damages against Orford himself. Dont think club would have any appetite for another protracted legal case.

Conversely, you could say that Manningham, Girlington, Ravenscliffe, Bradford Moor, Leeds Road, Thornbury, Holmewood, Buttershaw, Great Horton, Canterbury, Little Horton (all of which are closer to central Bradford than the areas you mentioned) are deprived, poor and not very nice. Just like most other inner cities in the UK.

Bradford's problem is that it is becoming a poor relation to other cities that have been regenerated in recent years ( well, the last 25 or so). Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool spring to mind as local ish examples.

Also if you asked most people from Harden, Bingley, Wilsden, Saltaire, BIngley (and even Shipley which is only 3 miles from central Bradford) where they were from, they would not say Bradford. they would use the name of their village or town, then describe it as being near Leeds!

I have lived in Bradford for all of my 33 years, and I accept it for what it is. I am proud to be from Bradford and have defended it against the racist stuff ( I am not the "wrong" colour, I am a white Englishman living in Bradford) and the references to the ripper, Crossbow nob, prostitutes etc...

However, if my family were not here, and my house worth about 20% LESS because i have a BD postcode rather than and LS one, I would be off like a shot.

I am disappointed that Orford went. He was a class above and scrum half weve had since Derek Fox in his pomp. However, I cannot blame him if there is money on the table from a club in his home land.

Intersting bit about the compo www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/r ... 5945833041 Interesting take on Orford www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 5944861914

Intersting bit about the compo www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/r ... 5945833041 Interesting take on Orford www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 5944861914

I suspect the entire Aire Valley would decouple from Bradford like a shot if ever given a chance. Let alone Ilkley, which would likely decamp to North Yorkshire or Cheshire or most likely Surrey...

Bradford inside the ring road is rapidly becoming another planet; and a pretty poor one at that, with possibly as depressed a city centre now as any major city or large town.

At least its not like the woman we were talking to on holiday last year, who was telling everyone at a cocktail reception she lived "just outside Harrogate". Last time I looked, Cleckheaton (where she actually lived) was a long way outside Harrogate...

I couldn't sleep last night. So I came on and read a few of your posts. I was away in minutes. Cheers Adey.

Nice.

Eddie, a word to the wise:

In the past few days, you've made 3 posts. None of them relate to any RL topic or thread. The sole purpose of each is to try to mock and aggravate.

(1) as above

(2) (aimed at me)


(3) (aimed at me)


Eddie, you're like a fart in the room. Nobody thinks your digs are clever, they certainly aren't funny, and your pathetic attempts at wind-ups don't work. Nobody is rising to it. People are just shaking their heads at your behaviour, so I shouldn't bother if I were you.

All true, I would guess. The civil action for breach of contract might or might not succeed (though it appears clear cut) but might not be worth the effort (blood from stones, and all that) plus the fact that an English court decision might, or might, not carry any weight down under. It would be reasonable to conclude that the club might not consider it a worthwhile risk.

Has he relapsed again? I decided to ignore him once I decided I had done my bit on here for Care in the Communuity. Seems I did right.

In an attempt to get back on thread, and looking at those reports about Oz Union being interested, the worry there would be that Bulls' only redress then would be against the player, for breach of contract. There being no reciprocal agreements or understandings with the ARU. As Bulliac says, would the club seek to fight a battle in the Aussie courts? Since enforcing a ruling handed down bu the English courts might be difficult? Hmm. You'd hope the Union club would decide to settle some form of "release fee" to buy certainty, but no guarantees. That said, it does seem they are very short of halves in the NRL, and any release fee should not count on the cap there.

The difficulty remains in the wording of Orford and his agent. That being, they have "requested a release". That in any court would be difficult to prove that he is "refusing" to play, meet his training obligations or ever play for the club again. his continued dialogue with the club (according to them) is pretty clever on his part because he simply isn't walking away as may have been perceived the case had he not spoken to his "employers". Factor in the club responding that they would be willing subject to an appropriate level of compensation and any court is going to find that incredidly difficult to deal with. As I've said, it's a ing contest and not one either side will wish to engage in when it comes to the crunch.

Battle of minds, is what the situation realistically is.

Indeed. By keeping his mouth shut, and letting the media do the job for him, he could no doubt still argue that he would have returned for pre-season had the club not given him dispensation. But we none of us know exactly what was said, by whom to whom and when, so we are all really still speculating. Guess ultimately it will all hinge on how important (if at all) a prompt closure will be to Orford - and to his prospective next employer?

The contract will most certainly define what laws and jurisdiction applies. I'd bet any money it is English law.

The Bulls would need to obtain a money judgment against Orford first. If they did, then the methods available to enforce it in Australia are much the same as here, they'd only need to register it in Aus under the foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933.

An attachment of earnings order would be nice.

I assumed English law, but did not know about any reciprocal enforcement mechansism. That would strengthen our chances of success then.

Would a UK court grant a money judgment? Knowing how unready they seem to be generally (from my understanding anyway) to make big awards against employees in such actions? presumably we are back to the Bulls proving the scale of their losses, and to there being no counterclaim?

Messy??

And therein lies the crux of the matter.

Both "legal" standpoints of respective parties will feel they have a strong case, should it get to that juncture; much as any defence team would hope to have. Legal cases are taken on board to earn solicitors money rather than necessarily play moral guardian to the nations problems and least of all guarantee any successful outcome.

But it is highly unlikely to get to that point. I would like nothing more than to see the club be recompensed for Orford leaving. However as I have maintained, any NRL club willing to pay a transfer fee is increasingly rare, albeit the lack of halves may put us in a stronger position. Worse case scenario for the club is we release him and save the large annual salary he was "earning".

I'm not sure we are in a position to go legal, nor will we lose out even if we didn't.

I don't think there's a problem with the principle of the case, but with the measure of damages which you could claim, which is restricted to your "loss". And that is not a lot, unless you are (for example) obliged to pay a big signing on fee for a replacement, or something like that.

In practice the fact that he can't play unless we release him is a more potent weapon. Though whether if we do not agree the release, we then have to keep paying him is probably a far trixier issue.


What people seem to always overlook is that in the vast majority of legal cases, as well as being a winner, there will correspondingly be a loser. As long as the loser's lawyers properly and fully advise on the chances of success, but the client says go ahead, then why shouldn't they be paid? (unless acting no-win, no-fee in which case they won't be paid). If however they mis-advise on the merits "to get the case on board to earn solicitors money" then that won't work, as they themselves would end up being sued.

I would doubt very much that Orford's lawyers if he appointed some would feel he had a strong case. Seems hard to see he has any case at all, and that if we chose to take it on, the only question is how much does he owe? Having said which, we wouldn't, I think, sue him except perhaps as a very last resort, if all other avenues fail.


Indeed. There are many factors to consider but they all militate against heading for the courts.

OK Mr Mod. You just keep speaking for everyone. I am sure they appreciate it.

I think this thread has gone off the rails enough times now.