www.canberratimes.com.au/news/lo ... 46077.aspx

www.canberratimes.com.au/news/lo ... 46077.aspx

I know we want it over and done with, but I just can't see why we would give him a release for nothing. Okay, pay him the money he is owed, then ask him to report for training.

Who knows, maybe it will be clearer in a few weeks? Perhaps a player became available unexpectedly and it was in our interests to just move on?

To be honest, I'm past caring and I have moved on. I'm just looking forward to the season ahead now.

Well look, we've got the release agreed. Once that's signed who cares what the money grubbing monkey does?

I suppose, I certainly won't wish him well at Canberra! I hope he has an awful time and never finds any sort of form.

I'd find it quite poetic if his surgery goes wrong and Canberra cancelled his contract as he was unlikely to be fit for the season

I hope the cut from the knife goes septic! I can't believe we have to pay him money and he walks away from a contract Scott free.

I think we will see this more and more with Aussie imports, ok not all of them are crooks and have a genuine want and love for the club they play for but some just take the ! You sign a contract and it's like giving your word!!

Before this we've had mainly good experiences with imports though.

It'd be good if Orford had taken a leaf out of Menzies or Morrison's book on conducting himself off the field.

Both of these men wanted to stay at Bradford but accepted that they had to move on. I realise its the opposite with Orford, but the way he has conducted himself stinks.

Oh yeah we have, I was talking about clubs in general. Orford (Bradford) Eastwood (Leeds, although he had the decency to play on and wait for the bid to come in) numerous Catalan players and Berrigan at Hull all ask for early releases.

Out of all these Orford has been the most dispicable of the lot!!

It riles me and someone will probably come back and shoot me down in flames with my examples

Always be suspicious of Aussies, their ancestors were bread thieves. Women glow and men plunder as the song says.

I note the wording is "The Bulls have agreed to pay it what it is owed". Which of course they would always had to have done. They were clearly only holding any money back as security against getting something from it. What it does not say is whether it has paid the club anything to get out of its contract. I know Conor implied not the other day, but whatever the terms of its Compromise Agreement will have been will doubtless be subject to a confidentiality clause. Sack of Rat Droppings will have a very strong interest in making it look like he got a good deal for his client, whether he actually did or not.

And we can take some comfort anyway from the strong likelihood that it never got paid by anyone from 1 November, and hopefully a big tax bill.

As for it going under the knife: - was it unprepared to sort that out itself while it was in limbo, instead waiting till it got a contract and then have it done on its new employer's time and at their cost? Canberra no doubt realise the snake they have signed, but hopefully will make use of it to their advantage then dump it when it is no longer of use to them. As it did to us. I'll not wish it ill under the knife; I'm sure there will be plenty of other opportunities for justice to be done upon it in the coming months.

You're right in the sense that Mimis and SFX would like it to be known that they have bent the Bulls over on this and Orford has got everything he wanted so it's understandable that being in the Canberra Times. What doesn't fit is Connor giving essentially the same info in the T and A.

Wonder if we can send a message to a certain Bull at the Rabbitohs to see if he fancies a bit of target, sorry I mean tackling practice on IT when they face each other in the NRL.

I know. That's the bit that bugs me. But again, what might the terms of the Compromise Agreement have been? Maybe...maybe...it included a term something like "I, The Despicable One, agree to pay Employer £x to secure release from my contract, on the strict understanding that this is never admitted or acknowledged publically, since my wondferful agent has rebated his fees to me because he does not want it to become public what a total charlatan and money-grabbing barsteward who then cannot deliver he really is"*?



Suspect, as Conor said, there is more to all this than meets the eye (I have heard odd bits to suggest that, too) and we may never get to know the truth of it.


[size=85* sorry, un-necessary words there. the words "Players Agent" would have said it all.[/size

Indeed!



Except that it will then get injured again, and have the rest of 2011 not playing but assuring the Raiders It intends to return after It has convalesced, and then at the eleventh hour It's agent will start putting it about that It's got a burning desire to return to the beaches of Sydney and It's health will suffer It stays at Canberra...

Groundhog Day.

And also for his (hopefully) huge legal bill.

I really hope you're right. The board have done really well over the last 6 to 8 months to reinvigorate the club and for them to give in having publicly stated they would hold firm doesn't sound right. Add to this we have just paid a fee for a player which suggests we haven't had to find 100k we didn't expect to. Also add in that this hasn't been confirmed yet and all reports state it 'will be completed' rather than has been. If we've caved in what's the delay?

In fairness, I think the Board and the Club have not really ever said anything much at all about the financial side of this whole affair. Everything we have read has pretty well come form the other side manipulating the media, with the odd comment from Conor, plus fans' speculation. All the "Standing Firm" comments web have read have been as regards him being a contracted player, IIRC. I would certainly be very disappointed if we have not secured some redress, in some form.

Given that It's image rights will doubtless have been assigned by It to It's offshore personal service company, one wonders if some compromise might have been effected with that company - especially since the value of It's image must surely have plummeted in view of It's conduct and non-availability?

It is conceivable that It was paid every penny It was due personally, and it did not have to pay the Bulls anything personally, but It's PSC had to compromise, thus allowing Sack of Rat Droppings to blab about It not having had to pay anything but It would still be out of pocket? I give this purely as a hypothetical example to indicate why this could all be more complex than most folk assume. I do not know anything, and I do hope It DID lose out somewhere, but in all this I merely speculate. ATEOTD we need rid of It and to move on, so all the good work of recent months is not tarnished by an overhang from the past, do we not?

I have a rusty stanley knife in the shed i think.

Adey's last sentence is pertinent. Bulls could easily spend hundred's more man hours & legal hours on this, which could easily eclipse any 'compensation' they get back. Plus it keeps the directors from doing more positive things.

Several large gentlemen from the West Yorkshire Constabulary will be calling upon you presently...

I like the comment in the T & A comments re Awful "If he's going under the knife I hope it's to seperate his Head from his Neck"

Lets hope it is work experience week in the hospital he attends!

I'd be willing to have a bash at the surgery. Sure I don't know what I'm doing and would probably cut something I'm not supposed to, but he's knocking on now anyway, so it wouldn't shave too much off his career.

On the plus side, it's unlikely I'd accidentally cut his balls off, as it seems to me that he doesn't have any.