Broncos Roster, Signings and Rumours Discussion 2023

[broncos4life]

Restriction of trade though is for any job i believe. I think if you can prove another company has illegally tried to poach you, its a different story.

We do hold all the cards though. He's contracted to us, so any deal has to be on our terms to a point. He cant just demand a release and get it while he has a contract. We can say OK Karl, we will release you to any club that pays us a million dollars. We dont have to make it easy for him to leave and i dont think we should either. I'd be asking more than $500k for him if i were the Broncos.

Sorry but you are 110% wrong here. Everything you said would be correct if we were 3 years down the road and his contract has expired. He is still contracted and has been told he will get a release if that meets our terms and the Dolphins don’t meet our terms.

 

[theshed]

That’s the problem though, Redcliffe don’t have anyone we want.

Harrison Graham or Isaya(?) Katoa would somewhat lessen the blow. Would give us some back up plans for Mam and Mozer.

Gilbert would be a good signing as he’s a pretty decent young forward. Nikorima wouldn’t be the worst idea except having both him and Billy in the team would be redundant.

Personally I would prefer the Dolphins don’t get anything though

 

[Sproj]

I'm scratching my head to think of who would be the weakest out there, but probably Herbie, maybe Reece, or Selwyn on a bad day.

Oh man, you just cannot help but let your bias come through can you. Explain it away by saying we have a good backline which we do but out of those, the weakest link is our one genuine international and BY FAR the most consistent back. This is the sort of stuff that makes it so hard to take you seriously when talking about your pet peeves.

 

[McHunt]

Oh man, you just can help but let your bias come through can you. Explain it away by saying we have a good backline which we do but out of those, the weakest link is our one genuine international and BY FAR the most consistent back. This is the sort of stuff that makes it so hard to take you seriously when talking about your pet peeves.

LOL. Way to miss the point. But point taken. Bias noted.

You do your weakest player now. I named 3 of the 5. You have 2 left.

 

[Wolfie]

d.

I think you’re wrong personally. A contract essentially is two parties voluntarily agreeing to waive particular rights to free trade. The club is entitled to restrict his trade because he signed a contract saying that he won’t ply his trade elsewhere. That being the case, if he wants to terminate that contract early then the other party can decide on what terms that occurs.

Regardless the only avenue to appeal a block to the Dolphins would be via the civil court system and I’m not sure Karl, his manager, or the Dolphins would want to volunteer to have the legal system request information from them regarding accusations of poaching. The NRL may have cleared them of any wrong doing but I wonder if the courts would be as biased.

You are 100% right with that in terms of him being under contract he cant use restriction of trade to break that contract. Its more in terms of us releasing him that i doubt we could stop him going where he wanted. Well technically, we could make it difficult enough to stop him, and i think we should make it difficult. I know in a lot of corporate jobs you tend to get contract clauses that stop you working for a rival competitor for a period of time but i highly doubt a footy player would have that particular clause.

With the court thing, i reckon there is zero chance of anyone being able to prove anything. We wouldnt have any evidence a club has tapped him up just the same as he has no evidence we promised him what he reckons they did. If everyone just denies everything i cant see where either party will find any proof.

As much as i think we would be best just cutting ties with the grub, i would love us to just make him see his contract out now.

 

[theshed]

Oh man, you just can help but let your bias come through can you. Explain it away by saying we have a good backline which we do but out of those, the weakest link is our one genuine international and BY FAR the most consistent back. This is the sort of stuff that makes it so hard to take you seriously when talking about your pet peeves.

I would say on current form Staggs is the weakest link but we all know what he can do at his best. Walsh is still a bit of an unproven quantity too imo

 

[theshed]

You are 100% right with that in terms of him being under contract he cant use restriction of trade to break that contract. Its more in terms of us releasing him that i doubt we could stop him going where he wanted. Well technically, we could make it difficult enough to stop him, and i think we should make it difficult. I know in a lot of corporate jobs you tend to get contract clauses that stop you working for a rival competitor for a period of time but i highly doubt a footy player would have that particular clause.

With the court thing, i reckon there is zero chance of anyone being able to prove anything. We wouldnt have any evidence a club has tapped him up just the same as he has no evidence we promised him what he reckons they did. If everyone just denies everything i cant see where either party will find any proof.

As much as i think we would be best just cutting ties with the grub, i would love us to just make him see his contract out now.

Mmm I think where yourself and others are not seeing eye to eye is that your opinion assumes that we have released him and then he is free to do what he wants but the way I see it is that we don’t release him until his destination is confirmed so there’s no restraint of trade because he hasn’t been released. The club simply doesn’t approve the release until it has been confirmed that he is signing with a club other than the Dolphins.

Not that I’m an expert on the matter so I may be wrong.

If they took it to civil court they would have an onus to provide all possible evidence that would be required to show they didn’t attempt to poach. This would mean giving access to emails, phone calls, text messages, etc. You would be surprised what people are dumb enough to put in writing - I would be surprised if the Dolphins would be comfortable under that level of scrutiny.

 

[McHunt]

I would say on current form Staggs is the weakest link but we all know what he can do at his best. Walsh is still a bit of an unproven quantity too imo

I'm outraged and literally trembling at your bias. How dare you pick one of our marquee signings. This is the sort of stuff that makes it so hard to take you seriously when talking about your pet peeves. I'll be sending you my therapy bill.

Still, at least you didn't pick our top try scorer of 2022.

 

[Wolfie]

Sorry but you are 110% wrong here. Everything you said would be correct if we were 3 years down the road and his contract has expired. He is still contracted and has been told he will get a release if that meets our terms and the Dolphins don’t meet our terms.

I'm not wrong because i'm talking about if he gets granted a release. He cant use it to break a contract. At the end of the day we are a business as well as a football club. Hypothetically, If we make it clear we value Karl at $500k, or $750k and the only club that meets that valuation is the Dolphins, we arent going to turn down that kind of money for a player who seems very adamant he wont even play for us no matter what.

 

[jd87]

id say we we only release him to the warriors. Keep the good vibes going between the clubs.

But warriors probably dont want a bar of him anyway after the whole walsh fiasco

 

[broncos4life]

I'm not wrong because i'm talking about if he gets granted a release. He cant use it to break a contract. At the end of the day we are a business as well as a football club. Hypothetically, If we make it clear we value Karl at $500k, or $750k and the only club that meets that valuation is the Dolphins, we arent going to turn down that kind of money for a player who seems very adamant he wont even play for us no matter what.

Nope you are wrong. You are arguing under the premise that we have said “ok you are released, just know that whatever club signs you will need to pay us 500k”

That is not what has happened. They have said you can negotiate and we will consider releasing you from your contract if it is at a club we approve and they pay 500k, btw we don’t approve of the Dolphins”

He is contracted to us and if he wants out of that contract he needs to meet those terms. It’s as simple as that.

 

[Wolfie]

Mmm I think where yourself and others are not seeing eye to eye is that your opinion assumes that we have released him and then he is free to do what he wants but the way I see it is that we don’t release him until his destination is confirmed so there’s no restraint of trade because he hasn’t been released. The club simply doesn’t approve the release until it has been confirmed that he is signing with a club other than the Dolphins.

Not that I’m an expert on the matter so I may be wrong.

If they took it to civil court they would have an onus to provide all possible evidence that would be required to show they didn’t attempt to poach. This would mean giving access to emails, phone calls, text messages, etc. You would be surprised what people are dumb enough to put in writing - I would be surprised if the Dolphins would be comfortable under that level of scrutiny.

I'm not assuming we have, i've just been saying if we grant him that release. As far as i'm aware, at the moment, its just a news article.

I'm not really knowledgeable enough either to know all the ins and outs, but speaking to somebody who has a better idea than i do they told me, and this is from a corporate standpoint, the only way you can stop anyone going to work for a rival ( after a non compete clause is served ) is if there has been something underhanded gone on. You need a good reason to block them and while we all know whats probably happened, i'd still be astonished if anyone could prove anything. As i said earlier, i know players who have been tapped up and its always been over a game of golf, or a meal, of just a coffee.

 

[Xzei]

I'm not wrong because i'm talking about if he gets granted a release. He cant use it to break a contract. At the end of the day we are a business as well as a football club. Hypothetically, If we make it clear we value Karl at $500k, or $750k and the only club that meets that valuation is the Dolphins, we arent going to turn down that kind of money for a player who seems very adamant he wont even play for us no matter what.

the money is of little help unless it translates to cap space

 

[Wolfie]

Nope you are wrong. You are arguing under the premise that we have said “ok you are released, just know that whatever club signs you will need to pay us 500k”

That is not what has happened. They have said you can negotiate and we will consider releasing you from your contract if it is at a club we approve and they pay 500k, btw we don’t approve of the Dolphins”

He is contracted to us and if he wants out of that contract he needs to meet those terms. It’s as simple as that.

So if we say he can go, what reason are we going to give if he challenges it? We need a reason not to approve them. Of course, all we have to do to avoid this is just not release him.

 

[Wolfie]

the money is of little help unless it translates to cap space

Money can go into all sorts of areas really.

 

[broncos4life]

So if we say he can go, what reason are we going to give if he challenges it? We need a reason not to approve them. Of course, all we have to do to avoid this is just not release him.

That last sentence you finally get it, we don’t release him if we aren’t happy and the Dolphins would mean we aren’t happy.

 

[WASSHHH]

Hammer's probably as close as Wayne got to a marquee signing. He's not going anywhere.

But for fantasy football's sake, we really don't want him. For starters, if we're to put any value on loyalty, we have no reason to demote or offload any of our players we have in his positions. I'm scratching my head to think of who would be the weakest out there, but probably Herbie, maybe Reece, or Selwyn on a bad day. See what I mean? We have great backs, and all, even Oates are on upward trajectories. Hammer might be faster than all those names, but collectively we're in a great place.

The rest of our spine is fragile, though. Anyone's guess what it's going to look like mid-season.

You’re absolutely right, he is the closest they have to a marquee signing which is what I meant by my last point.

Redcliffe seem to think they can do what they want when it comes to signing players, so let’s just throw it back in their face. You want something from us, we want something from you.

If they had a decent 9, that’s who I’d be going for. But they don’t, so let’s propose their most dangerous player instead.

It’s not so much that we need Hammer, as you and others have pointed out, we don’t. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be great to weaken them.

 

[Wolfie]

That last sentence you finally get it, we don’t release him if we aren’t happy and the Dolphins would mean we aren’t happy.

I've got it all along, and i've been saying that previously, but as i said, if we say he can leave, we need a reason not to let him go to a particular club.

I'm still of the opinion we cant prove any club has tapped him up because we would have done it by now if we could, same as if he could prove his little story about us he would have. So from a Broncos point of view, we either have to release him and get the fee we want regardless of who it is, or we keep him.