Broncos Roster, Signings and Rumours Discussion 2026

I guess it could be seen as anyone offering a decent player swap that Barnett is also happy to head to goes to the front of the line and gets him.

If no one bites on the player swap, then it's just wherever Barnett chooses to go... and I'd say the wahs CEO will be complaining to the NRL that they should get salary cap relief or something like that
 
Dash said:
No doubt the wording is clear, it's just a strange announcement to make when nothing has actually happened.

Also the use of "will be released" only to be followed up by a giant "IF" the next day just makes them look like dickheads.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps the club willing to sign Barnet offer a player swap provided the said player willing to move & if the Warriors are satisfied with said player, they might release Barnet sooner 🤷‍♂️.

There could be a ploy by Warriors to test the waters sooner and figure out from there instead of just releasing Barnet. Their true intention could be a player swap now maybe 🤔.

Anyways, I hope it’s nothing do with us and we’re radio silent about all of it.
 
1910 said:
The wording is very clear, they don't say has been released.

Warriors CEO Cameron George today announced the 31-year-old Kangaroos and New South Wales front rower will be released from the final year of his contract.

Mitchell and Orr still have some work to do.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that is not clear at all. Or rather it is clear, but not what they meant.

[player] WILL BE released means it is going to happen, in the future, guaranteed, no if's or clauses or anything

If the Warriors made a clear and accurate statement it would have been ..... will be released at the end of the 2026 season if an appropriate player swap can be negotiated....
 
john1420 said:
I'm afraid that is not clear at all. Or rather it is clear, but not what they meant.

[player] WILL BE released means it is going to happen, in the future, guaranteed, no if's or clauses or anything

If the Warriors made a clear and accurate statement it would have been ..... will be released at the end of the 2026 season if an appropriate player swap can be negotiated....
Click to expand...

Will be released *
* But the Warriors will have a say in what club he gets released to, depending on what players(s) can be offered in return.
 
Clubs need to stop demanding player swaps. It stupid. There is in no structure in place in the NRL to allow for trades. It's not the NBA. You are just courting trouble. In some sense the Eels have gotten what they deserve with Lomax. He behaved poorly but they were naive in thinking they could get players back for him. That's why they are in the hole they are.
 
Broncos01243 said:
Clubs need to stop demanding player swaps. It stupid. There is in no structure in place in the NRL to allow for trades. It's not the NBA. You are just courting trouble. In some sense the Eels have gotten what they deserve with Lomax. He behaved poorly but they were naive in thinking they could get players back for him. That's why they are in the hole they are.
Click to expand...
I think clubs have a right to defend their contracts. If they release a player on a goodwill basis they are entitled to seek something in return. That could also be a Win/Win Swap.

Lomax completely at fault. He broke the agreed resolution and asked them to give him what he wants despite this for very little in return. Let's see how the court case plays out but I think what Storm put on the table as an offer was grossly undervalued.

I think the Warriors are a bit more pragmatic with Barnett. They understand he leaves a hole in their roster and that he is an asset to the club that gets him. By saying they will release him and seeking a possible player in return is very reasonable. They have announced the release first allowing clubs to come to the table with an open offer. Now clubs have a chance to compete for him on that basis. I hope they do get something for their kindness in releasing him. I don't think they will withhold the release as part of that.
 
Broncos01243 said:
Clubs need to stop demanding player swaps. It stupid. There is in no structure in place in the NRL to allow for trades. It's not the NBA. You are just courting trouble. In some sense the Eels have gotten what they deserve with Lomax. He behaved poorly but they were naive in thinking they could get players back for him. That's why they are in the hole they are.
Click to expand...
Exactly... player swaps are very rare because you basically need a perfect situation.

- Team 2 (having a player they are happy to lose in a trade, wanting Barnett, salary cap able to handle Barnett and losing the traded player including any payout)

- Player 2 (agree on moving to wahs, including a new contract (value, years, options, etc.), agree on leaving current club including any payouts, etc.)

- Wahs (being happy with the player offered and terms of new contract)

- Barnett (happy with club putting forward the trade as well as terms of new contract with new club).

It is very rare youre going to get all that lined up.

In US sports it's simply Team to Team for the existing contract. There's very little the player can do about it... although some star players have no trade clauses.


In the NRL it's probably much easier working out a loan for a released player.

That way the contract for the loan player doesnt change (only who pays it), the loan player and club know it's only temporary, the wahs still get a player to cover the gap year that Barnett has been released from.
 
Oldman said:
I think clubs have a right to defend their contracts. If they release a player on a goodwill basis they are entitled to seek something in return. That could also be a Win/Win Swap.

Lomax completely at fault. He broke the agreed resolution and asked them to give him what he wants despite this for very little in return. Let's see how the court case plays out but I think what Storm put on the table as an offer was grossly undervalued.

I think the Warriors are a bit more pragmatic with Barnett. They understand he leaves a hole in their roster and that he is an asset to the club that gets him. By saying they will release him and seeking a possible player in return is very reasonable. They have announced the release first allowing clubs to come to the table with an open offer. Now clubs have a chance to compete for him on that basis. I hope they do get something for their kindness in releasing him. I don't think they will withhold the release as part of that.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying Lomax isn't at fault. I'm saying the Eels didn't gameplan out what may happen. They granted his release to rugby in part because they wanted him gone. If Rugby 360 fell over they wagered they could offload him to another club for an equal player in return. They didn't seem to realise that was highly unlikely (another club trading a rep player for a guy who has walked out on two contracts). They are now in a position where they have a player on the sidelines who doesn't want to be there and is eating their cap. If they weren't prepared to let him go for financial compensation from another club they never should have granted the initial release.
 
Broncos01243 said:
I'm not saying Lomax isn't at fault. I'm saying the Eels didn't gameplan out what may happen. They granted his release to rugby in part because they wanted him gone. If Rugby 360 fell over they wagered they could offload him to another club for an equal player in return. They didn't seem to realise that was highly unlikely (another club trading a rep player for a guy who has walked out on two contracts). They are now in a position where they have a player on the sidelines who doesn't want to be there and is eating their cap. If they weren't prepared to let him go for financial compensation from another club they never should have granted the initial release.
Click to expand...

No offence but that is a load of crap.

Firstly he's been released, he isn't taking one cent of Parramatta's cap.

Secondly, it doesn't matter to them if they get a player for Lomax or not. They're perfectly happy to force him to play outside of the NRL for the next 3 years. But if an NRL club wants Lomax before the 2029 season then they need to come to the party and give Parramatta what they want or they won't allow Lomax to okay for that club, which they are well with their rights to do since they were smart enough to get that clause in his release contract.
 
Sproj said:
But he is for 2026 if the Warriors are hoping to get something for an early release.
Click to expand...

George and Barnett have already ruled out an early release. That’s part of the reason Warriors agreed, they have 12 months to solve it.
 
Nothing to stop a deal where Wahs get Arthars from '26 and Broncos get Barnett from '27. (Provided they have room in their cap now)
 
Talks of the Eels trying to use Lomax as a carrot to get Barnett. Might lessen our chances if true.
 
New Posts

Unread

Back
Top