Broncos veteran Matt Gillett could be ‘forced to walk away from NRL’

[Skathen]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/b...l/news-story/c148a2d367c5535bc7f8a91dcdf87c96



[automerge]1572414540[/automerge]
Sorry just noticed this is somewhat a duplicate of the Darren Lockyer article, feel free to delete

 

[tommy]

Anyone else notice that all these Gillett to retire rumours only started up after it has been speculated and hoped for on here? Lockyer even said today he hopes he plays on. I wonder if there's even any truth to it.

 

[Nashy]

He didn't look half the player he used to be when he played this year. Hell of an injury, and to sign him for 4 years before playing again is absolutely stupid.

Hope for the best for him, but I do hope he moves along, his money would be handy.

 

[I bleed Maroon]

Anyone else notice that all these Gillett to retire rumours only started up after it has been speculated and hoped for on here? Lockyer even said today he hopes he plays on. I wonder if there's even any truth to it.

I suspect it might be the clubs doing. They obviously want Gillo to retire just for his cap space, and saw the stuff with Souffs and Burgess as a chance to strike while the iron is hot. Two stories dueling for attention is a lot better than the full spotlight on one. It's quite easy to spread artificial rumors in this day and age, especially with a ravenous media willing to jump on whatever scrap hits the floor.

I am fairly confident at the moment that we'll hear about Gillett's fate before the end of next week, maybe even earlier. His money is paying for Croft. Watch this space.

 

[NSW stables]

Ok, just read an article regarding burgess' retirement. It indicated that doctors indicated he would need to miss the next 2 seasons to address his shoulder issue (apparently another surgery and rehab).

That would mean he would still have another year on his contract, which in theory he could return to the field. How can they justify a medical retirement then?

If he could in theory return to the field within his stipulated contract, Where is the line drawn between significant long term injury and medical retirement?

 

[Sirlee oldman]

Ok, just read an article regarding burgess' retirement. It indicated that doctors indicated he would need to miss the next 2 seasons to address his shoulder issue (apparently another surgery and rehab).

That would mean he would still have another year on his contract, which in theory he could return to the field. How can they justify a medical retirement then?

If he could in theory return to the field within his stipulated contract, Where is the line drawn between significant long term injury and medical retirement?

Was wondering the same thing myself. I think they will probably only allow part of his contract to come off the cap but I guess we’ll see.

 

[tommy]

Said the same thing in a different thread. Plus I reckon he would be out for 1.5. 2 would be the absolute max. It's a rort.

 

[Morkel]

I know a lot has been said about Gillett being re-signed while injured, but at least as far as injury-related retirement is concerned, the injury he may be retiring for (shoulder) is completely different to the one he had when he was re-signed (neck). If he is legit done at the top level, there is no reason the NRL should reject such an application.

As @I bleed Maroon said, it may be a positive that Burgess is in a similar situation. Judging by his off-season conduct, it would appear that he is more able-bodied than Gillett, meaning if they approve Burgess' retirement, Gillett's should be a no-brainer (I know elite-level league is somewhat more demanding that giving a chick a shoulder-ride, but it speaks volumes as to how seriously Burgess is treating his injury).

The NRL loves Burgess, loves Souths, and want Bennett to succeed at somewhere other than the Broncos so any favour they show to them will only help our case.