forward_pass
QCup Player
- Mar 12, 2008
- 506
- 1
Gi wins rigged fight to pay laywers bills via dodgy betting syndicate...
Broncos withdraw their two year offer to Greg Inglis
- Thread starter Aeetee
- Start date
nopatience101
NRL Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 3,224
- 5,544
How many times does it have to be said, no contracts could be signed because of the dispute between player managers and the NRL over signing stat declarations, which was only resolved over the last week or so. Hannant could have pulled the same crap as his contract wasn't signed either, the difference comes down to the integrity of the person your dealing with, which is not under the broncos control! The terms had been signed.The Rock said:
nopatience101
NRL Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 3,224
- 5,544
Signing the contract only became an option over the last week or 2 because the Player agents were in dispute about them also having to sign any contract declaring that its clean, before that no contracts were being signed. The storm not releasing him was the reason a contract couldnt be registered once it was able to be signed which was only recently.Kaz said:
- Thread starter
- #188
nopatience101 said:
The point I find strange is that, he was meant to come back on Saturday and sign said contract. So does that mean the Melbourne thing was guaranteed to be resolved by then?
I think what Kaz said was on the money, contract signed, GI secured, Melbourne issue resolved BANG no dicking around here is the signed contract.
I'm starting to think he never had any intention to sign with us, he used the Broncos for rehab while other shit was sorted out.
Kaz
State of Origin Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 9,590
- 3,120
nopatience101
NRL Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 3,224
- 5,544
The dispute with Melbourne not releasing him until he paid his legal fees was stopping any contract being registered until they did. However Inglis signing the contract means he is bound to the broncos and cant talk or play with anyone else and is effectively a Broncos employee. Registering a contract with the NRL only allows that player to play in the NRL competition, if he wasn't released he would still be in the broncos weight room until the broncos choose to release him or his contract with us expired. No negligence on behalf of the broncos management is responsible for this, once the player agents union dispute with the NRL was resolved efforts were made repeatedly to get him to sign the contract which is probably why the whole thing came to a head over the last week as the broncos made efforts to get it signed.Aeetee said:
nopatience101
NRL Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 3,224
- 5,544
Yes once the player agent dispute with the NRL was resolved he could have signed it and the NRL register it once Melbourne released him officially, but signing it only became an option recently because it was only recently that the agents had settled their despite with the NRL. No player contract could have been signed while the player agents were refusing to sign the stat decs, thats why contracts weren't signed months ago for guys like Hannant.Kaz said:
- Thread starter
- #192
I got no beef with the Broncos Management on this one, I lay the blame solely at I himself. Like you said the contract couldn't be sign until the dispute had been resolved, but as soon as it was, if he was serious he would have sign ASAP. he didn't, he lied, he reneged, he jumped into bed with the biggest fuckhead in Aussie sport and in the process showed that it was money that makes him happy and not playing up here with his 'mate' ( I use that term loosely cause mates don't fucking lie straight to each others faces). I have no problems with him going else where. I have a problem with the way the cheap prick did it. If he had just said, I am committed to the Broncos for now but a weighing up other offers that have recently surfaced and are financially they better, then non of this dog act shit would have come up.
Hes a dog.
Hes a dog.
- Mar 14, 2008
- 8,466
- 10,499
I am struggling to blame it on anyone other than broncos management.
People are saying he's dog and whatever, fine, they're entitled to that, but at least Souths and their clique have done everything they can to sign him, to show him he's wanted.
What did Brisbane do? Play hardball at every single opportunity, almost inferring that we didn't really want him but because his gf was moving here you might as well play for us anyway.
You see it time and time again in european football (soccer), players and agents dilly-dally around when being woo'ed by potential employers, more often than not the club that does the most gets their man.
But no, Brisbane has to roll out the 'nobodys bigger than the club' line. It's got fucking nothing to do with that, and everything to do with ambition. Brisbane showed none, Souths showed heaps.
I mean ***** sake, this opportunity was gift-wrapped and all we had to do was write his name on it and we couldn't even do that, we had the following going for us:
He wanted to play with Lockyer
He wanted to play with Hodges
His GF was moving here for a fulltime job
He wanted to get out of Melbourne
Seriously? How the **** did we screw up his signature when we had the aforementioned on our side of the ledger?
And as for rumours about his well-being, wasn't it not so long ago that Benji's career was hanging by a thread, and that Civo was on his last legs and had more strappin than a racehorse? Ah yes, those always seem to conveniently come up when things don't transpire the way you want. I have my doubts that he's got nothing more than wear and tear, but I guess we'll see.
Two other points:
Cullen mentioning that we'll be able to retain Lockyer, Parker and Hodges now with the money we were gonna spend on Inglis.... so the **** what? Lockyer wasn't going to ask for much to play in 2012, Parker should never be on huge money anyway and Hodges could be as useless as a bag of shit come 2012 given his injuries, his notorious rehab capabilities and his age.
And how everyone is saying omg we'll be fine we have all these young kids and bla bla bla. Hey guys, where did the kids get us this season? Oh that's right, we finished outside the 8 for the first time in 20 years. They must be good. Now, don't take this as, I don't want to invest in any youth or whatever else, but the fact is, our youth didn't really get us aywhere last year, and yes we were missing Hodges all season and yes we missed Lockyer at the most crucial part.
But guess what? Who knows how well Hodges can recover, if he is even half the player he was in 2011, and Lockyer is going to be another year older, another year slower (not in the head but in the legs) ...we best hope these young kids step up because if the latter two start to unwind in terms of contribution we are in serious, serious shit.
People are saying he's dog and whatever, fine, they're entitled to that, but at least Souths and their clique have done everything they can to sign him, to show him he's wanted.
What did Brisbane do? Play hardball at every single opportunity, almost inferring that we didn't really want him but because his gf was moving here you might as well play for us anyway.
You see it time and time again in european football (soccer), players and agents dilly-dally around when being woo'ed by potential employers, more often than not the club that does the most gets their man.
But no, Brisbane has to roll out the 'nobodys bigger than the club' line. It's got fucking nothing to do with that, and everything to do with ambition. Brisbane showed none, Souths showed heaps.
I mean ***** sake, this opportunity was gift-wrapped and all we had to do was write his name on it and we couldn't even do that, we had the following going for us:
He wanted to play with Lockyer
He wanted to play with Hodges
His GF was moving here for a fulltime job
He wanted to get out of Melbourne
Seriously? How the **** did we screw up his signature when we had the aforementioned on our side of the ledger?
And as for rumours about his well-being, wasn't it not so long ago that Benji's career was hanging by a thread, and that Civo was on his last legs and had more strappin than a racehorse? Ah yes, those always seem to conveniently come up when things don't transpire the way you want. I have my doubts that he's got nothing more than wear and tear, but I guess we'll see.
Two other points:
Cullen mentioning that we'll be able to retain Lockyer, Parker and Hodges now with the money we were gonna spend on Inglis.... so the **** what? Lockyer wasn't going to ask for much to play in 2012, Parker should never be on huge money anyway and Hodges could be as useless as a bag of shit come 2012 given his injuries, his notorious rehab capabilities and his age.
And how everyone is saying omg we'll be fine we have all these young kids and bla bla bla. Hey guys, where did the kids get us this season? Oh that's right, we finished outside the 8 for the first time in 20 years. They must be good. Now, don't take this as, I don't want to invest in any youth or whatever else, but the fact is, our youth didn't really get us aywhere last year, and yes we were missing Hodges all season and yes we missed Lockyer at the most crucial part.
But guess what? Who knows how well Hodges can recover, if he is even half the player he was in 2011, and Lockyer is going to be another year older, another year slower (not in the head but in the legs) ...we best hope these young kids step up because if the latter two start to unwind in terms of contribution we are in serious, serious shit.
