Re: Chissy : Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:48 pm  

roger daly wrote:

You've seen his contract?

Yes.

Re: Chissy : Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:14 pm  

redeverready wrote:

Yes.

Out of interest how would you of seen it?

Re: Chissy : Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:58 pm  

redeverready wrote:

Seen it. It has an option clause on it which at a guess won't be taken up.

Who is the option in favour of? Dane or the club?

Re: Chissy : Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:09 am  

Nothus wrote:

Who is the option in favour of? Dane or the club?

This is the first thing I thought of, after all this if its in favour of Sheff they will surely take it up as they will look a bit daft if not!

Re: Chissy : Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:39 am  

RickyF1 wrote:

Out of interest how would you of seen it?

He must be either the player, the agent, rep of the club, or member of the RFL obviously.

Re: Chissy : Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:23 am  

Greg Florimos Boots wrote:

Maybe Bradford can split the cost for the illegal approach with the other Championship teams and the SL team who all made him offers. Unless that did not happen and his agent was telling porkies.

I think your confusion is growing to epic proportions, so i'll try to help.

1. of all the people in the world, even counting Chisholm, perhaps THE most likely to know whether he was or was not free to sign elsewhere is his agent. Seeing as it is his job to find Chisholm a gig.

2. As for his agebt "telling porkies", what are you saying? That his agent out of the blue got offers from several teams, who all mistakenly and mysteriously decided randomly to make an offer to some guy already signed by some other team, regardless of the rules? And they all did that?

Or, as Occam would conclude, they had all been circulated as to Chisholm's availablity and had assumed the information was correct?

Which are you putting your money on?

3. There IS no "cost of illegal approach". IF you induce someone to breach their contract then you might have to pay damages if the other club sue you (believe me, we know) but there is no evidence at all that we did any such thing. Irrespective of that, even if we did, if as we are told he's a free agent in a few weeks anyway, any damages would be minimal and not worth bothering with. As damages in civil law simply reflect the actual cash loss and Sheffield would be hard pressed to demonstrate any cash loss.

What you may have been thinking of is a possible fine by the RFL (ie into RFL coffers, and not to Sheffield) for an illegal approach. But can you really see that? Without knowing, again my chum Occam strongly suggests that all these clubs wouldn't have made offers without being told he was free to make offers to, and so if all these clubs have been misled, then do you really think the RFL would fine them? What would be the point?

Can anyone remind me how much Shudds were fined in relation to Kopczak, and what additional penalties they faced for lying to the RFL about their approach?

Re: Chissy : Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:52 am  

thepimp007 wrote:

This is the first thing I thought of, after all this if its in favour of Sheff they will surely take it up as they will look a bit daft if not!

You'd think the clause would include an option to extend on agreement by both parties

Re: Chissy : Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:54 am  

Drust wrote:

You'd think the clause would include an option to extend on agreement by both parties

Usually a clause favours just one side. Largely because an agreement between both parties is just a new contract.

Re: Chissy : Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:01 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I think your confusion is growing to epic proportions, so i'll try to help.

1. of all the people in the world, even counting Chisholm, perhaps THE most likely to know whether he was or was not free to sign elsewhere is his agent. Seeing as it is his job to find Chisholm a gig.

2. As for his agebt "telling porkies", what are you saying? That his agent out of the blue got offers from several teams, who all mistakenly and mysteriously decided randomly to make an offer to some guy already signed by some other team, regardless of the rules? And they all did that?

Or, as Occam would conclude, they had all been circulated as to Chisholm's availablity and had assumed the information was correct?

Which are you putting your money on?

3. There IS no "cost of illegal approach". IF you induce someone to breach their contract then you might have to pay damages if the other club sue you (believe me, we know) but there is no evidence at all that we did any such thing. Irrespective of that, even if we did, if as we are told he's a free agent in a few weeks anyway, any damages would be minimal and not worth bothering with. As damages in civil law simply reflect the actual cash loss and Sheffield would be hard pressed to demonstrate any cash loss.

What you may have been thinking of is a possible fine by the RFL (ie into RFL coffers, and not to Sheffield) for an illegal approach. But can you really see that? Without knowing, again my chum Occam strongly suggests that all these clubs wouldn't have made offers without being told he was free to make offers to, and so if all these clubs have been misled, then do you really think the RFL would fine them? What would be the point?

Can anyone remind me how much Shudds were fined in relation to Kopczak, and what additional penalties they faced for lying to the RFL about their approach?

Or option 4. Their were no other offers and said agent used the "other offers" to try and drive up his clients value all the time while going to Bradford who he saw as an easy target and told then that Chisholm would soon be relieved of his duties at Sheffield.

Re: Chissy : Tue Apr 25, 2017 1:07 pm  

Either way, you can't blame Bradford for one mans naughty behaviour,
it would be near impossible they could prove that Bradford actively encouraged him to get sacked by Sheffield..

Its all delay tactics, if Redeveready is right we have to wait a week..

More exciting would be to play a game of guess who as to who Redeveready is, first question is mine..
Do you wear glasses?