Broncos Player Movements and Rumours 2014

[Foordy]

Do you understand that if you release guys on contract you still have to pay most of the time half of their salary and it's on the cap still?

You can't release 5 or 6 guys to go play for someone else and take up cap space while they play for 6 other teams.

I read an article the other day that Parramatta are paying 750k for several players to play for other teams ATM. all due to Stuarts cleanout

 

[Kimlo]

Do you understand that if you release guys on contract you still have to pay most of the time half of their salary and it's on the cap still?

You can't release 5 or 6 guys to go play for someone else and take up cap space while they play for 6 other teams.

That's only if another club doesn't sign them for their equivalent wage?
So if Hoffman is on 350k, and another club agrees to cover that value (or higher), then it cost nothing on our cap? That's the way I understand it works.

 

[Foordy]

That's only if another club doesn't sign them for their equivalent wage?
So if Hoffman is on 350k, and another club agrees to cover that value (or higher), then it cost nothing on our cap? That's the way I understand it works.

although, if a player is released clubs know they can get them cheaper for the how ever long was left on their contracts so they can offer less money

 

[Smokin' Joe]

Do you understand that if you release guys on contract you still have to pay most of the time half of their salary and it's on the cap still? You can't release 5 or 6 guys to go play for someone else and take up cap space while they play for 6 other teams.

100% correct and the reason why Kennedy wasn't released

 

[talanoa]

kennedy's deal is far more complex, hence the reason for no early release.

 

[Cult]

Do you understand that if you release guys on contract you still have to pay most of the time half of their salary and it's on the cap still?

You can't release 5 or 6 guys to go play for someone else and take up cap space while they play for 6 other teams.

Even if they are the ones who ask for the release?

 

[Brett]

Even if they are the ones who ask for the release?

Yes. Hence why clubs are reluctant to grant releases.

 

[john1420]

Yes. Hence why clubs are reluctant to grant releases.

Surely not?

If a player asks to be released, they are requesting their contract be terminated

There surely can be no obligation on the employers part to ensure the players salary

If they are booted out, then it makes sense, but not if they ask to be let go

 

[1910]

Even if they are the ones who ask for the release?

Yes of course, it doesn't change anything.

You might work out the release with the club he wants to go to- he's on 350k we will pay 200k you pay 150k. That's why it is not going to happen when people say let's release these 6 guys.

It's also why you sack coaches not players- it's cheaper and easier to sack one guy than 6 and be picking up the tab for the next four years anyway.

 

[lynx000]

Yes of course, it doesn't change anything.

You might work out the release with the club he wants to go to- he's on 350k we will pay 200k you pay 150k. That's why it is not going to happen when people say let's release these 6 guys.

It's also why you sack coaches not players- it's cheaper and easier to sack one guy than 6 and be picking up the tab for the next four years anyway.

Unless there is some specific clauses in the NRL contracts or under the NRL rules to cover this, at law that does not make sense. If the player seeks a release from the contract and the club agrees to the termination of the contract, there is no longer a contract on foot. How could a refusal by the Club to pay the player be enforced if the contract has been terminated?

In any other employment situation, if the employee seeks to terminate the contract and signs another contract with another employer, the original employer is not obligated to pay any ongoing wages to them.

 

[Brett]

Unless there is some specific clauses in the NRL contracts or under the NRL rules to cover this, at law that does not make sense. If the player seeks a release from the contract and the club agrees to the termination of the contract, there is no longer a contract on foot. How could a refusal by the Club to pay the player be enforced if the contract has been terminated?

In any other employment situation, if the employee seeks to terminate the contract and signs another contract with another employer, the original employer is not obligated to pay any ongoing wages to them.

They are if they've signed a contract that extends past the time they've asked for the release at.

Example: I sign a contract to play for the Broncos for Season 2014 and 2015 for $1m. I ask for a release in June, 2014 from my contract because I want to go and play for Canberra. Canberra and Brisbane come to an agreement on who will pay how much to each other. For arguments sake, Brisbane agree to pay $200k of my contract and Canberra agree to pay the remaining $800k. If Brisbane don't want to pay any money, Canberra have to pay the whole $1m, or Brisbane refuse to release me.

Does that make any sense?

 

[pennywisealfie]

HUNT TO TEST VALUE ON OPEN MARKET | Rugby League Week

great

 

[Super Freak]

Every player tests their value on the open market. Just another way to get more money.

I have faith Bennett will do everything he can to keep the first good halfback we've had since Langer.

Hunt will stay.

 

[noisetheory]

agreed i see nothing to worry about. he states he wants to stay in brisbane so unless the club royally eff him over i see no reason why he wont resign. after this season he deservers to get what he's worth (meaning we would probably re-sign him for a little bit less than the highest offer elsewhere).

there is no real point to the article other than try create uncertainty about the broncos squad given the coaching changes.

bennett already tried to get hunt to newscastle previously so id say hunt would be atop of his list of players to lock in.

 

[Morkel]

This is old news. The media are just rehashing it, as if having Bennett here is going to make it less likely that Hunt will stay, and that Griffin leaving is the instigator for him considering going elsewhere. Pathetic.

 

[noisetheory]

exactly. hunt hung around for years on the bench, with DUDS getting put ahead of him. if that didnt make him leave then, then he's not going nowhere now.

 

[Brett]

Aside from all of the reasons mentioned above, Bennett needs Hunt. And by that I mean, Bennett needs a genuine play maker with good skills. Lockyer, Soward, Mullen (?). He's had most success with a genuinely good Half and will build the team around him next year.

I think we'll see Ben Hunt the superstar, next season.

 

[Foordy]

Aside from all of the reasons mentioned above, Bennett needs Hunt. And by that I mean, Bennett needs a genuine play maker with good skills. Lockyer, Soward, Mullen (?). He's had most success with a genuinely good Half and will build the team around him next year.

I think we'll see Ben Hunt the superstar, next season.

I think we're seeing Ben Hunt the superstar, this season.