Ranga Chivaviro’s agent Trabi Harve has refused to entertain the rumour that his client signed a pre-contract with Richards Bay, pouring cold water on the hot striker’s chances of joining Kaizer Chiefs.

Chivaviro’s contract with relegated DStv Premiership outfit Marumo Gallants expires at the end of this month. On the back of a splendid season, where he netted an impressive 17 goals from 29 games across the domestic league and the CAF Confederation Cup, Chivaviro has emerged as a hot property, with Chiefs and a host of the continent’s big guns such as Young Africans of Tanzania and Libyan side Al Akhdar, among many others, believed to be keen to sign him.

Chivaviro’s transfer story took an unexpected turn early this week when reports emerged that the 30-year-old marksman had penned a pre-contract with Bay before becoming an instant hit.

While Bay chairman Sifiso Biyela couldn't be reached for comment, Harve could neither confirm nor deny that Chivaviro signed a pre-contract with Natal Rich Boyz, narrating what kind of a team they wanted for his client.

“Honestly, I don’t want to comment about that [whether Chivaviro signed a pre-contract with Bay] because I am reading a lot of things in the media. Our focus is on how the boy will get a new team for next season,” Harve told Sowetan yesterday.

“Ranga has a CAF pedigree now, so the next level should be to play at that same level...[we aim] to look for a club who are in a CAF competition or else [he must] go to places like Saudi Arabia or Qatar. I’ve received a call from South Korea, waiting for an offer, so we’ll see what will happen. We must also look at Ranga’s age to see how things should be, salary wise.”

Interrogated if Amakhosi were out of the race, Harve somewhat contradicted his previous statement that the priority was to get Ranga a team who will be playing CAF tournaments. “It’s any player’s dream to play for Kaizer Chiefs in SA and outside SA. I won’t say anything more than that,” Harve insisted.

According to a report by UK law firm Blake Morgan, pre-contracts are generally not binding as they are usually marked “subject to contract” and are simply a commitment by the parties to enter into a later contract.

Blake Morgan’s report further explains that the difference between a pre-contract and a contract is that the parties to the pre-contract have not agreed the essential terms and so the pre-contract does not reflect the final agreement. However, if a pre-contract contains all the essential terms that have been agreed, then the pre-contract is effectively a final contract and is likely to be binding.