Re: Rumours thread. : Wed May 02, 2012 11:58 am  

Smurf wrote:

I know Betts rates him highly

Well if that's the case, "barge poles", and "wouldn't touch him with" immediately springs to mind.

Re: Rumours thread. : Wed May 02, 2012 1:32 pm  

I believe we've made inquires into Mullally but don't know if it has or will be taken any further.

Re: Rumours thread. : Wed May 02, 2012 1:50 pm  

BackrowSaint wrote:

I believe we've made inquires into Mullally but don't know if it has or will be taken any further.

If this is the case does look good for walker hand and forster

Re: Rumours thread. : Wed May 02, 2012 1:52 pm  

1984saints wrote:

If this is the case does look good for walker hand and forster

To be honest, from what I was told it just sounded more like asking the question than genuine interest.

Re: Rumours thread. : Wed May 02, 2012 2:05 pm  

If we were to sign Mullally, and if it is true that Widnes have offered him improved terms, then we would have to pay a transfer fee.

Re: Rumours thread. : Wed May 02, 2012 2:26 pm  

Dux wrote:

If we were to sign Mullally, and if it is true that Widnes have offered him improved terms, then we would have to pay a transfer fee.

Really? Even if he's out of contract? How does that work legally? It's restriction of trade?

Re: Rumours thread. : Wed May 02, 2012 3:12 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Really? Even if he's out of contract? How does that work legally? It's restriction of trade?

There's a rule in place that a club is entitled to a transfer fee for a young player (I think it's under 24, but it might be under 22) who moves to another club at the end of his contract if they made that player an offer that was a material improvement on his existing contract. The idea was that it would discourage bigger clubs from poaching all of the young talent from across the league. I'm not sure how it would stand up to a legal challenge, though.

Re: Rumours thread. : Wed May 02, 2012 4:39 pm  

It is also in force with the premier league as well.

Re: Rumours thread. : Wed May 02, 2012 6:33 pm  

Dux wrote:

There's a rule in place that a club is entitled to a transfer fee for a young player (I think it's under 24, but it might be under 22) who moves to another club at the end of his contract if they made that player an offer that was a material improvement on his existing contract. The idea was that it would discourage bigger clubs from poaching all of the young talent from across the league. I'm not sure how it would stand up to a legal challenge, though.

That's correct.

Why wasn't we awarded a fee for Kyle eastmond? Or does it only stand in super league?

Re: Rumours thread. : Thu May 03, 2012 11:55 am  

St pete wrote:

That's correct.

Why wasn't we awarded a fee for Kyle eastmond? Or does it only stand in super league?

Because we were glad to see the back of the oxygen thieving, two faced, sicknoted waste of space Ask Bath who has got the best end of the deal.