Looks like Southernwood will be getting plenty of games.

Good news IMO.

Good news if it's Southernwood with a top Stand off but ATM we haven't got one.



Personally if everything gets tied up and the first choice half back pairing is 6. Pryce and 7. Hanbury (as looks likely once all the juggling is finished) with Southernwood and Addy as cover it's better than last year.



Potter by the looks of him isn't afraid to put youngsters in straight off into the places left uncovered without forcing everyone else to play out of position which was one of my biggest complaints about macca.

Up to a point Mick but it isn't in his, or our, best interests that he is the main scrum half, and I'm certain the coaching staff wouldn't abuse the kid. It would be totally unfair to dump all that responsibility on a youngster like that.

Its looking like Orford could be on his way to Parramatta according to the T&A.. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _contract/ Hopefully we will negotiate the best deal we can and use the dosh to buy Pryce out of his contract at Saints, and bring in a Scrum Half...From somewhere!

Its looking like Orford could be on his way to Parramatta according to the T&A.. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _contract/ Hopefully we will negotiate the best deal we can and use the dosh to buy Pryce out of his contract at Saints, and bring in a Scrum Half...From somewhere!

www.1eyedeel.com/ found this whilst trolling, more fuel to add to the Orford bonfire

www.1eyedeel.com/ found this whilst trolling, more fuel to add to the Orford bonfire

1. Is it a train smash if Orford doesn't return?

2. So what if he's homesick, Sydney v Bradford. I would be. Personal happiness isn't about money.

3. The club are playing out their legal role. Logical and expected

4. Orford has never been outstanding. For anyone.

5. The club are making contingency plans to replace. Logical

6. The pious views of some regarding contractual obligations is laughable given our Harris behaviour.

7. Pryce and Hanbury or other connotations mooted is far superior to Orford/Sykes/Kearney.

8. It's abundantly clear that "demanding" release/transfer fees in actuality, doesn't tend to happen. It's merely a face saving issue. Perhaps perceiving it as instead saving nigh on 200k p.a would be the standpoint to adopt.



I don't see it being much more complicated.

Seems a sensible and balanced view to be fair, though I'm not sure just what we can do if Orford simply doesn't turn up for training. As the web site points out most decent players will have contracts sorted by now so the chances of getting a ready made (and equivalent) scrum half are pretty low, unless Parramatta have someone.



I've always said that if someone doesn't want to play there's little to be gained in trying to force him, so I'm not going to change that view now. Orford isn't coming out of this with much credibility though; he's an adult and has signed a contract for three years (and just two years left, so he's not exactly signed his life away, and even if he had there was no gun to his head, AFAIK), IF he'd had the decency to be honest about this and said he couldn't settle before he left to recover from his injury, then it could have been done quite amicably and a replacement could have been arranged months ago, long before all the deals were finalised.



I've really no idea how the law applies in Australia, but I'm guessing he can't play for Parramatta unless he gets clearance from the Bulls, I would also assume that some kind of law about breaking contracts exists in Australia (hopefully a reciprocal one with the UK) which would allow some kind of remedy in law against the Eels and possibly against Orford. Not that I'd particularly expect us to go down that route but it would be a reasonable lever to get some compensation out of the Aussie club, particularly given Orford's behaviour which has left the Bulls in the lurch more than somewhat.

With regard to compensation, I'm not sure whether this is employment law or law of contract (though I've no doubt someone can confirm). In the contracts that I deal with you can not have penalty clauses, only an amount for a pre-estimate of the loss that would accrue for a breach of the contract (in my case delay of completion). In Orford's case would the Bulls have to demonstrate their possible loss had he not fulfilled his contract, which is obviously difficult?

We should have learned all that. When we were playing the Parramatta role with Harris, as you said, Leeds made the right noises, but clearly "demanding" fees etc didn't happen. They were clearly happy to save nigh on 200k p.a. for Harris's wage, and just did a bit of posturing to save face. They didn't sue us, and near on bankrupt us, nor did they sue Harris.



I imagined it all.

If there is something in the contract then that would obviously apply, but I have no knowledge of the contents.



If he breaks his contract then the Bulls can claim from him what it costs them to obtain a replacement. Obviously that wouldn't include much if anything by way of salary, as that's swings and roundabouts, but there would for a start undoubtedly be administrative costs in acquiring a replacement player. Where bigger sums may come into it is what if his replacement were also from Aus, and we had to pay transfer/signing on fees? Seems to me that is a loss we could sue Orford for.



From memory weren't Leeds also suing Harris for all the millions they allegedly lost that they were going to make from marketing his image?



Not that I have any clue how far that got either. It may have settled or it may still be ongoing. I suppose if it did conclude it would all be confidentiality-clause wrapped up so we probably never will know.

I'm not suggesting there are any 'penalty clauses', to be honest I wouldn't think there would be. So far as I know when contracts are discussed, the term "standard" SL contract is mentioned as though there is some template.



There are laws about contracts (probably civil, rather than criminal) which deal with compensation, as the Bulls know only too well. In truth I don't think it would be difficult to show loss, particularly with the player not being upfront in the first place. If he had said "I want out" when he went back to Australia then I would suggest not, but as it is, the club will be hit by the loss of their main playmaker (just when they are trying to sell season tickets) and will be very fortunate to sign a player of similar quality at this late stage. Those two facts alone would show a de facto loss, surely.



Don't suppose there is any chance he was 'cohersed'?