Morkel
International Captain
Contributor
- Jan 25, 2013
- 25,542
- 29,768
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.
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.
Exactly. It's okay for a player to break a contract and play elsewhere, so long as it's for less money and the incumbent club doesn't have to chip in? Should have told Milford, he could have signed for the Broncos on $1 less and come home straight away.
The fact that the Knights held the belief that they didn't need to contribute to Boyd's pay packet means that things aren't as simple as you think.