NEWS Boyd Urged to Consider Early Retirement

[BroncsFan]

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.

I don't see why they would need to close the "loop hole" though... GI walked away from his contract and into a different kind of salary, but the bunnies still wear his new salary. It's a win win for the club and player. If GI doesnt get a salary outside of playing footy he may have decided to play on and potentially become medically retired... I think that is a very risky approach for the NRL to continue along ie. play out your contract until you can literally no longer play anymore.

The Broncos effectively do this all the time with former players being given jobs within the club.

If Darius walks away from his current contract with nothing and has two years left, make whatever salary he earns from Broncos (if any) sit in the cap.

If the NRL change this players will basically be forced to continue playing in order to earn a living... unless they become medically retired.

Do the NRL really want to give the players very little alternative other than play until you drop.

If there are any clubs that try to rort this by saying he is earning $300k but actually paying them $800k... then come down hard on them.

 

[Dexter]

I don't see why they would need to close the "loop hole" though... GI walked away from his contract and into a different kind of salary, but the bunnies still wear his new salary. It's a win win for the club and player. If GI doesnt get a salary outside of playing footy he may have decided to play on and potentially become medically retired... I think that is a very risky approach for the NRL to continue along ie. play out your contract until you can literally no longer play anymore.

The Broncos effectively do this all the time with former players being given jobs within the club.

If Darius walks away from his current contract with nothing and has two years left, make whatever salary he earns from Broncos (if any) sit in the cap.

If the NRL change this players will basically be forced to continue playing in order to earn a living... unless they become medically retired.

Do the NRL really want to give the players very little alternative other than play until you drop.

If there are any clubs that try to rort this by saying he is earning $300k but actually paying them $800k... then come down hard on them.

Because his new salary is 700k less than his playing salary and off the cap.
My understanding of it is atm the player can decide to retire and it's off the cap. The club obviously can't tell a player to retire without having his contract on the cap.
I'm pretty sure GIs situation ( voluntarily walking away ) wasn't specifically identified in the cap rules which makes it hard to enforce.

 

[BroncsFan]

Because his new salary is 700k less than his playing salary and off the cap.
My understanding of it is atm the player can decide to retire and it's off the cap. The club obviously can't tell a player to retire without having his contract on the cap.
I'm pretty sure GIs situation ( voluntarily walking away ) wasn't specifically identified in the cap rules which makes it hard to enforce.

But I don't see why the NRL would want clubs to wear a nonexistent salary.

If the player decides to walk away from $1M it is effectively not being paid anymore by anyone so why would the NRL say nah you have to keep that $1m in the cap.

It doesnt benefit anyone... the player isn't getting the money, the club isn't spending the money (just wearing it on the cap) and the NRL has to keep track of it as part of the salary cap auditing (lord knows they struggle bad enough as it is, but now they want to manage money that isn't even being spent).

If anything the Jarryd Hayne example suggests that players and clubs can mutually void a contract and may have been able to do this all along in order to keep player transfers fluid within the league.

 

[Dexter]

But I don't see why the NRL would want clubs to wear a nonexistent salary.

If the player decides to walk away from $1M it is effectively not being paid anymore by anyone so why would the NRL say nah you have to keep that $1m in the cap.

It doesnt benefit anyone... the player isn't getting the money, the club isn't spending the money (just wearing it on the cap) and the NRL has to keep track of it as part of the salary cap auditing (lord knows they struggle bad enough as it is, but now they want to manage money that isn't even being spent).

If anything the Jarryd Hayne example suggests that players and clubs can mutually void a contract and may have been able to do this all along in order to keep player transfers fluid within the league.

Because clubs cannot be trusted.
Clubs could/ would start signing players to extended contracts to keep them at the end of their careers . EG Cam Smith signs a 2 year extension at 500 k instead of 1 year deal at 1mill knowing he will "retire" after 1 year then pay him the extra 500k off the cap for being the reserve orange peeler.
They then get access to the spare 500k in the first year to keep Brandon Smith.

 

[BroncsFan]

Because clubs cannot be trusted.
Clubs could/ would start signing players to extended contracts to keep them at the end of their careers . EG Cam Smith signs a 2 year extension at 500 k instead of 1 year deal at 1mill knowing he will "retire" after 1 year then pay him the extra 500k off the cap for being the reserve orange peeler.
They then get access to the spare 500k in the first year to keep Brandon Smith.

Except in the GI case the bunnies are wearing his new salary ($300k) to be the "reserve orange peeler".

In your example Cam Smith walking away from football only to give him $500k to sit on the sidelines is not what is currently happening at the bunnies... and wouldn't alleviate any salary cap space.

That is effectively the Gasnier situation that was outlined previously and brought about the changes to retirement.

 

[Dexter]

Except in the GI case the bunnies are wearing his new salary ($300k) to be the "reserve orange peeler".

In your example Cam Smith walking away from football only to give him $500k to sit on the sidelines is not what is currently happening at the bunnies... and wouldn't alleviate any salary cap space.

That is effectively the Gasnier situation that was outlined previously and brought about the changes to retirement.

Surely you can see that GI was on 1 mill and now is on 300k effectively freeing up $700k hence the Roberts defection.

My example is the danger as the NRL would view it of not closing the loophole.
Basically they are saying to the clubs if you're stupid enough to sign an older player on an extended contract then you have to wear it.

 

[Xzei]

pretty sure for this year it was how much he had been paid so far before his retirement + any of his off field earnings associated with the club and i think they were reported to only have 300k left this year and 900k-1m next year.

 

[BroncsFan]

Surely you can see that GI was on 1 mill and now is on 300k effectively freeing up $700k hence the Roberts defection.

My example is the danger as the NRL would view it of not closing the loophole.
Basically they are saying to the clubs if you're stupid enough to sign an older player on an extended contract then you have to wear it.

But it's still the player making a conscious decision to walk away from $700k... he didn't have to do that. He could've hobbled around for another year and picked up his pay cheque.

We are currently paying for it with Boyd... he's playing on and chewing up cap space. We can't turn to him and say "guess what mate you're retired now, but here's a job pulling beers for $300k"... he'd say get fucked you can pay me out in full if you want me to leave.

He has to make the decision to walk away from $800k playing the game to pick up a salary with the Broncos doing whatever else... and if the Broncos do give him a job we still wear his new salary for the next two years.

I don't see how there is any room to rort that kind of system legally. It could definitely be rorted illegally by the club saying GI is on $300k to the NRL, but then paying him $1M in new boats... but that is just flat out salary cap rorting and the NRL can come in and crack down hard like any other form of cheating.

 

[Dexter]

But it's still the player making a conscious decision to walk away from $700k... he didn't have to do that. He could've hobbled around for another year and picked up his pay cheque.

We are currently paying for it with Boyd... he's playing on and chewing up cap space. We can't turn to him and say "guess what mate you're retired now, but here's a job pulling beers for $300k"... he'd say get fucked you can pay me out in full if you want me to leave.

He has to make the decision to walk away from $800k playing the game to pick up a salary with the Broncos doing whatever else... and if the Broncos do give him a job we still wear his new salary for the next two years.

I don't see how there is any room to rort that kind of system legally. It could definitely be rorted illegally by the club saying GI is on $300k to the NRL, but then paying him $1M in new boats... but that is just flat out salary cap rorting and the NRL can come in and crack down hard like any other form of cheating.

Well, I don't know how to explain it any better.

 

[Xzei]

Don't think it has been decided yet if souths paying inglis counts towards next year's cap pretty sure the nrl are waiting till the end of the year to decide.

 

[I bleed Maroon]

Do it

 

[Locky’s Left Boot]

“Brisbane will face fresh retention headaches next season with a number of big-name stars coming off-contract. They include veteran hooker Andrew McCullough,”

 

[Locky888]

I read in the news there's a clause in Boyd's contract where he must play at least 15 games a season before his contract gets extended for another year (final year). Simple solution for the Broncos if they don't want him in 2021 is to stash him away in 2020.

 

[Alec]

Boyd would have been mostly fine playing like he did against Souffs...if he was at centre. Not a clever ball player, but good enough to set up just one man.

Still some inexcusable things like not diving to score though.

 

[007]

Hes just not up to standard for the position hes been put in, nor the position he was at. He would be ok on the wing.

There obviously politics going on as blind freddy can see where hes at.

 

[Nashy]

Imagine only having to dive over the line to score a try and get some heat off you, and managing to **** that up some how. I'm pretty sure his body went against the laws of physics to **** that tonight.

 

[ostin86]

Imagine only having to dive over the line to score a try and get some heat off you, and managing to **** that up some how. I'm pretty sure his body went against the laws of physics to **** that tonight.

I was pissed!

 

[BroncsFan]

I was pissed!

Pissed is an understatement I'm still furious