Broncos Player Movements and Rumours 2014

[Danoz Direct]

I read that he had to inform the Knights by the end of June (or something close to it) if he planned to use the get out clause

And I am pretty sure he did that.

 

[Super Freak]

And I am pretty sure he did that.

I'm pretty sure he did that in July..

Who knows? Unless someone here was involved behind the scenes, we will never know exactly when he told Knights he wanted out.

 

[Kimlo]

Blair was signed until 2016. Boyd was signed until 2016.

If the last few weeks have shown us anything its that NRL contracts arent worth the paper theyre written on.

Milford would disagree.

 

[Ari Gold]

And I am pretty sure he did that.

I'm pretty sure he didn't. Otherwise why did we need to negotiate his release? I remember reading that he missed the deadline as well.

 

[Anonymous person]

Blair had 1 year left on his contract and was unwanted by the Tigers
Boyd had a clause in his contract that enabled him to leave and was unwanted by the Knights

Klemmer has 2 years left on his contract and is the most sought after forward in the NRL

So Blair was signed until 2016....thanks for saying exactly what I said, I guess?

As has been stated, Boyd missed the window to action that get-out clause. He wasn't "unwanted by the Knights" either. He wanted out as soon as daddy left but had missed his opportunity, so he had to then break the contract, which is why Newcastle came out saying they wouldn't pay him a dime if he leaves as he would be the one breaking the contract.

 

[Unbreakable]

As has been stated, Boyd missed the window to action that get-out clause. He wasn't "unwanted by the Knights" either. He wanted out as soon as daddy left but had missed his opportunity, so he had to then break the contract, which is why Newcastle came out saying they wouldn't pay him a dime if he leaves as he would be the one breaking the contract.

Actually, genius, Darius Boyd activated his get out clause before Bennett told the club he was leaving, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Bennett - 'What He Brings We Need' - Broncos

"He had made the decision before I made the decision, that he wasn't staying at the Knights, under his contract he had that right"

 

[Anonymous person]

Actually, genius, Darius Boyd activated his get out clause before Bennett told the club he was leaving, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Bennett - 'What He Brings We Need' - Broncos

"He had made the decision before I made the decision, that he wasn't staying at the Knights, under his contract he had that right"

Firstly, genius, that doesn't say anywhere that he activated the get-out clause, just that he decided to leave. There is a cut-off date for these things, and I'd read that he missed it.

Secondly, I don't believe a word Bennett says these days, and I can't believe some people do. "I won't sign with a club that has a coach currently under contract". Yeah right lol. also "They all bring different things but Darius is the best of them all" lol. he still believes that Boyd is far better than he ever has been and ever will be: "He's as good as anybody in that fullback position.". Shows how deluded he is.

Thirdly, you just proved yourself wrong. You said:

Boyd had a clause in his contract that enabled him to leave and was unwanted by the Knights

Then you go ahead and say that he told the knights he was leaving, not that he was unwanted by the knights. Which is it, genius?

 

[Sproj]

If we were wanting someone else, I'd go Lloyd Perrett.

Joffa, Molo, Perrett, Garbutt...there's your front row rotation for the next decade and throw in McG, Arrow and Oates, you've got your backrow for the next decade.

 

[Unbreakable]

Firstly, genius, that doesn't say anywhere that he activated the get-out clause, just that he decided to leave. There is a cut-off date for these things, and I'd read that he missed it.

Watch the video genius, Bennett specifically says he left under a clause in his contract.

Secondly, I don't believe a word Bennett says these days, and I can't believe some people do. "I won't sign with a club that has a coach currently under contract". Yeah right lol. also "They all bring different things but Darius is the best of them all" lol. he still believes that Boyd is far better than he ever has been and ever will be: "He's as good as anybody in that fullback position.". Shows how deluded he is.

Your agendas and diluted facts don't interest me, sorry.

Thirdly, you just proved yourself wrong. You said: Boyd had a clause in his contract that enabled him to leave and was unwanted by the Knights

Then you go ahead and say that he told the knights he was leaving, not that he was unwanted by the knights. Which is it, genius?

I didn't prove myself wrong in the slightest, he did tell the Knights that he was leaving, but they certainly weren't going to stand in his way, I dare say they were perfectly fine with him moving on because they want to use their new poster boy Mata'utia at Fullback for next season.

Genius.

 

[Anonymous person]

Think about it for a second - if he executed the clause then there would have been no need for Newcastle to have to release him, and no payout talk. The fact that there was proves that he didn't execute it in time.

And again - Bennett has proven that he'll say anything to get what he wants across, truth be damned. Him saying that means nothing when all evidence points to the contrary.

 

[Morkel]

Think about it for a second - if he executed the clause then there would have been no need for Newcastle to have to release him, and no payout talk. The fact that there was proves that he didn't execute it in time.

And again - Bennett has proven that he'll say anything to get what he wants across, truth be damned. Him saying that means nothing when all evidence points to the contrary.

The knights said that they were sticking firm in not subsidising Boyd's deal. They wouldn't have a choice if Boyd was still contracted, ie, hadn't activated the clause.

 

[Anonymous person]

Thats not how get out clauses work lol.

If he activated his get out clause then thats it, hes out of the contract at his doing, Newcastle would not have to pay him a cent from that moment on. Boyd wanted to leave AFTER the date that he could take up the get out clause had expired, so he then had to get a release. For this to happen, Newcastle would have to pay any shortfall in his next contract. They obviously objected to this because Boyd was the one trying to break the contract, not them, hence the comments about them not paying a cent. This is obviously what caused the delay in signing with Brisbane. He couldn't sign as Newcastle hadn't agree to release him.

Literally all the evidence points to him not taking up the get out clause. If he did it would have been as simple as doing so and signing with Brisbane 10 minutes later.

 

[Morkel]

Thats not how get out clauses work lol.

If he activated his get out clause then thats it, hes out of the contract at his doing, Newcastle would not have to pay him a cent from that moment on. Boyd wanted to leave AFTER the date that he could take up the get out clause had expired, so he then had to get a release. For this to happen, Newcastle would have to pay any shortfall in his next contract. They obviously objected to this because Boyd was the one trying to break the contract, not them, hence the comments about them not paying a cent. This is obviously what caused the delay in signing with Brisbane. He couldn't sign as Newcastle hadn't agree to release him.

Literally all the evidence points to him not taking up the get out clause. If he did it would have been as simple as doing so and signing with Brisbane 10 minutes later.

Well then what legal right would the Knights have to deny Boyd the shortfall? Regardless of who initiates the break in contract, the full value must be paid.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

Deja vu here of the Milford saga. No one knows exactly how the contract was written (other than the parties, of course), so everything else is just guesswork.

 

[Anonymous person]

Well then what legal right would the Knights have to deny Boyd the shortfall? Regardless of who initiates the break in contract, the full value must be paid.

Why would that be the case? If Boyd wants out if his contract why would the knights have to pay him? He is the one breaking the contract, therefor he is entitled to nothing. Contracts aren't paid in full if they're broken, they're paid in full if they're completed or the one who offered the contract (the employer) wants to break it. Otherwise you could get a job offer, sign it, then break it straight away and be entitled to a payout of the whole contract lol. Rinse repeat and never work a day in your life and be filthy rich.

 

[Super Freak]

If I remember correctly, the money has to be paid regardless of who breaks it.

If a club releases a player, they have to pay out the rest of the contract starting from that date.

 

[Kimlo]

Not if he activates a get out clause, if he does then the contract is null. I believe that's different form when a club organises a release/transfer to a other club, where they do have to cover the shortfall.

 

[Socnorb]

You would have to be pretty stupid to sign a contract that has a clause to allow one party to leave but still get paid.