Re: Bulls rumour thread for 2012 season. : Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:27 am  

Diamond Harry wrote:

He might even struggle to get a visa, he's been sacked by 2 clubs for drink related incidents.

it would depend on how clean his criminal record is.

Re: Bulls rumour thread for 2012 season. : Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:29 am  

phillgee wrote:

it would depend on how clean his criminal record is.

hasnt got one afaik. the incidents he was sacked for were for breaches of club discipline so shouldnt be of any concern to immigration authorities.

Re: Bulls rumour thread for 2012 season. : Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:11 pm  

http://www.radiosport.co.nz/SportsNews/spleg/Detail.aspx?id=199057 signed for Hull according to Seymour

http://www.radiosport.co.nz/SportsNews/spleg/Detail.aspx?id=199057 signed for Hull according to Seymour

Re: Bulls rumour thread for 2012 season. : Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:17 pm  

Id still rather have Leon Pryce.

Re: Bulls rumour thread for 2012 season. : Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:21 pm  

Looks like Seymour has signed for Hull http://tvnz.co.nz/rugby-league-news/sey ... rs-4254344

Looks like Seymour has signed for Hull http://tvnz.co.nz/rugby-league-news/sey ... rs-4254344

Re: Bulls rumour thread for 2012 season. : Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:59 pm  

Nobeerineasthull wrote: Looks like Seymour has signed for Hull http://tvnz.co.nz/rugby-league-news/sey ... rs-4254344 Also Agar quoted earlier.. "It's fair to say that there has been a link and he turned another club down," added Agar. Club he turned down possibly us if not definately

Nobeerineasthull wrote: Looks like Seymour has signed for Hull http://tvnz.co.nz/rugby-league-news/sey ... rs-4254344 Also Agar quoted earlier.. "It's fair to say that there has been a link and he turned another club down," added Agar. Club he turned down possibly us if not definately

Re: Bulls rumour thread for 2012 season. : Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:29 am  

The obvious difference would therefore be that we (after recent events with contracts) didn't want to offer more than 2yrs. Hull offered 3 but at slightly less annual salary so therefore can factually be reported that he signed for Hull for less money.

Re: Bulls rumour thread for 2012 season. : Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:36 am  

Highlander wrote:

The obvious difference would therefore be that we (after recent events with contracts) didn't want to offer more than 2yrs. Hull offered 3 but at slightly less annual salary so therefore can factually be reported that he signed for Hull for less money.

No, he just preferred Hull to Bradford.

Re: Bulls rumour thread for 2012 season. : Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:01 am  

fcimp wrote:

No, he just preferred Hull to Bradford.

I'm sure you're trolling but I'm going to bite anyway because there does appear to be some deluded hull fans that genuinely believe professional rugby players, in their short careers that can be cut short at any time, don't care about job security etc. they're just happy to take a pay cut to play for a slightly better club in a comp that's far bellow the standard their used to. Sounding more and more like Wire fans.

Re: Bulls rumour thread for 2012 season. : Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:11 am  

fcimp wrote:

No, he just preferred Hull to Bradford.

Thanks for your opinion on that. To upgrade to something with a bit more weight - you either need to say

1) I have spoken to Peter Hood, George Mimis & Seymour and they have kindly given me a copy of Bradford's offer which I can PDF to anyone who wants confirmation.

or

2) No, he just preferred Hull to Bradford - FACT (which has been the standard option from your neck of the woods for the last 9days.

Ok - from the players own lips - "Brett Seymour has confirmed he's leaving the Warriors at the end of the season.

The halfback has agreed to terms on a three-year contract with UK Super League club Hull FC.

Seymour said the deal gives him financial security.

He said the contract will give him an opportunity to travel the world while he plays"

Security in player/ agent terms means length of contract.

Whilst I have seen neither offer, from the statement I would conclude that he chose the one with the longer term. I can't stick FACT after it as I don't know for sure but that is the conclusion I would make.