From a lawyer;
Dib is talking absolute effing nonsense - he probably knows that and is intentionally trying to deceive.
The Dogs are very likely liable for the extra years on Des' deal - because although only "heads of agreement" (I hate that term) was signed - it's still a letter of intent to renew the deal, and can form the basis for a verbal contract. The fact that the Dogs publicly paraded the 'fact' Hasler had re-signed really hurts them, as the biggest problem with enforcing verbal contracts is proving their existence... the public statement helps Hasler here, damaging any argument as to intent on the Bulldogs' part (as does the fact that it is an extension of an existing contact, removing one of the other typical problems with verbal contract claims - specific terms).
It's likely that there will be a settlement and the Dogs will be paying Hasler at least some of the money from that extension, because Des doesn't seem to me to be the type of guy to not pursue it - hard.