NEWS Boyd Urged to Consider Early Retirement

[The Strapper]

I think he is just saying don't take up you player option mate. It frees up around 800k for the year all those guys are off contract. I personally think Boyd will finish up end of next year and not take up his option. If he is going this year the club/coach already knows and it could be why he hasn't been dropped.

Agree. If he was going this year I think it already would have been announced.
Best case scenario is he doesn’t take up his option for 2021. If that is going to happen it needs to happen soon so we can tie up Fifita as he will be getting lots of big offers from Nov 1.

 

[lynx000]

If he does not take up his option, there is no contract for 2021, therefore theoretically, why can't the club employ him in an off-field role without that money going onto the salary cap? Same thing with McCullough?

 

[Brotherdu]

I'm not exactly sure how it all works. Watmough, Matai and Stewart i think had to have their salaries carried on, but Inglis didnt. Being an out of form player on the decline like Boyd isnt grounds to have your contract wiped.

For all the Bennett haters, its probably all his fault because i believe this came about after the Dragons signed up Gasnier on minimum wage on the proviso the following year he got paid his market value, then he promptly retired and they got out of it.

i'm 99.9% sure that if it's a straight retirement, then the club doesn't owe the player anything under the cap for future years. The amount paid to the player for the year up to and including the point he retires is what counts towards the salary cap.

The issue is when the club/player want's to medically retire, if it is a new injury that causes the retirement, then theoretically, they are entitled to the full amount and it is excluded from the cap.

In the case of Watmaugh and Co, they were pre-existing injuries, so they could not get it excluded from the cap, therefore the player stayed on the books as they didn't want to retire as they would not be entitled to anything once off the books.

We would have a similar issue with Gillo, if his back causes him to retire, then because it's pre-existing he can't get it paid out. So if he wants his 4 yrs, he has to stay on the books as an injured player, or retire with no payout.

 

[theshed]

I'm still not seeing how him retiring is going to save us his salary for next year. Isnt he contracted for next year and another in his favour if he wants it? Even if he calls it quits ( which i think he probably should ) then we still have to carry his salary.
[automerge]1566122552[/automerge]


He is very well respected and popular amongst the players. An off field role in welfare would be a perfect fit for him imo. He has been through a fair bit in his life and come out of it a better person for it. He has a lot to offer in that sort of role.

This article is talking about retiring after 2020.

 

[Huge]

If it's a mutual agreement then Boyd could retire at the end of this year and next years wages would not be part of the cap. Why would it be? If he decides to retire there is no reason why we would continue to count his non existent wage.

 

[Wolfie]

i'm 99.9% sure that if it's a straight retirement, then the club doesn't owe the player anything under the cap for future years. The amount paid to the player for the year up to and including the point he retires is what counts towards the salary cap.

The issue is when the club/player want's to medically retire, if it is a new injury that causes the retirement, then theoretically, they are entitled to the full amount and it is excluded from the cap.

In the case of Watmaugh and Co, they were pre-existing injuries, so they could not get it excluded from the cap, therefore the player stayed on the books as they didn't want to retire as they would not be entitled to anything once off the books.

We would have a similar issue with Gillo, if his back causes him to retire, then because it's pre-existing he can't get it paid out. So if he wants his 4 yrs, he has to stay on the books as an injured player, or retire with no payout.

I was under the impression it got changed because of the whole Gasnier rort at the Dragons. I do get its a bit different with Boyd because he isnt getting unders like Gasnier was with the promise of a big contract later.

 

[Kooly87]

Honestly, if he would retire our potential spine options actually looks quite exciting for next season:

1. Milford
6. SOS
7. Dearden
9. Turpin

 

[mrslong]

The fucked thing is if we were a scum club we would just play the mental health card. Something tells me we're going to do everything by the book though, because these days we love shooting ourselves in the foot for some reason.

Technically it's an existing condition anyway, so we couldn't use that loophole.

 

[The Strapper]

Honestly, if he would retire our potential spine options actually looks quite exciting for next season:

1. Milford
6. SOS
7. Dearden
9. Turpin

Could be alright but what about Macca and Seggy?

 

[Kooly87]

Could be alright but what about Macca and Seggy?

Well realistically there's only room for one of them on the Bench. My gut says it'll be AM9 but honestly Seggy provides way more off the Bench in that role than AM9 does.

 

[Kimlo]

If he does not take up his option, there is no contract for 2021, therefore theoretically, why can't the club employ him in an off-field role without that money going onto the salary cap? Same thing with McCullough?

There's no doubt about that. If he doesn't activate his option, there's no salary cap burden on the club for 2021.

However, for 2020, if he just "retires" we have to carry his salary on the cap. Lol. Don't ask why, this is the NRL but you can't retire just because you feel like it. Souths had to get the Inglis deal approved and I don't remember hearing anything further about whether it was / was not approved.

Unless they are medically retired, terminated for breach of contract, or off contract, their salary counts to the cap full stop.

 

[Kimlo]

If it's a mutual agreement then Boyd could retire at the end of this year and next years wages would not be part of the cap. Why would it be? If he decides to retire there is no reason why we would continue to count his non existent wage.

Because otherwise, player X on 1 mill who is now reserve grade quality can "retire" then be given an off field job for 1m. Player stays hush and gets his money, club doesn't have to deal with bad recruitment decision on the cap.

 

[Dazza 92]

i feel the club will look to address these issues during the off-season...though hard to imagine all 4 of Glenn, Macca, Boyd & Gillett WONT be at the club to start season 2020..

But id say there will be some taps on certain players shoulders about their expected return to the squad next year Ive no doubt...

 

[rogerwilco]

If Darius Boyd retired at the end of the year gthe Broncos would not have to include his contract in their salary cap.

 

[Nashy]

If Darius Boyd retired at the end of the year gthe Broncos would not have to include his contract in their salary cap.

Under what terms? He is contracted next year, so it would come from our cap.

 

[Morkel]

IMO the precedent was set when the NRL allowed Hayne to leave his Titans deal and play for the Eels on a reduced contract. Up until then, it hadn’t been allowed, you couldn’t just void a contract half way through unless there were behavioural standards breached. If a player went elsewhere for less, the previous club had to foot the difference. Inglis would have been allowed to retire, with his voided years completely off Souths’ books, had he not been offered a cushy, high-paying job. Can’t see why the NRL wouldn’t let Boyd do the same, assuming all players are considered equal.

 

[The Strapper]

IMO the precedent was set when the NRL allowed Hayne to leave his Titans deal and play for the Eels on a reduced contract. Up until then, it hadn’t been allowed, you couldn’t just void a contract half way through unless there were behavioural standards breached. If a player went elsewhere for less, the previous club had to foot the difference. Inglis would have been allowed to retire, with his voided years completely off Souths’ books, had he not been offered a cushy, high-paying job. Can’t see why the NRL wouldn’t let Boyd do the same, assuming all players are considered equal.

That’s just it we’re the broncos and we’re not treated equal.
Anyway the point is moot because there is no way Darius is retiring next year.

 

[Dexter]

I'm still not seeing how him retiring is going to save us his salary for next year. Isnt he contracted for next year and another in his favour if he wants it? Even if he calls it quits ( which i think he probably should ) then we still have to carry his salary

Hasn't the precedent been set with GI?
The NRL will more than likely close the loophole but if he walks this year we have a fair argument and some leverage with media types spruiking that Greebburg favours certain players.