NEWS Dodgy Deal: Broncos accused of deception by Schoolboys captain

Big Pete said:
Coercing players to break contracts with promises of better deals. Again, when it's playing out this publically it needs to be adequately investigated and clubs need to be held accountable.

That's why I'd take this more seriously than one social media source who hasn't included any names or details.


The thing is, it's typically above board. As I said, the typical scenario is that clubs will sign players for the following season and will then request clubs to release them from their final year. It's a flawed system, but at least clubs know that to avoid this they need to get the deal done before November 1st.

What's happening with Mariner and Oloapu isn't above board and should be punished. I'm not holding my breath that they will because the NRL knows they're asking a lot of the Dolphins with such a shallow talent pool.
Click to expand...

You keep saying they have coerced players, but as i keep saying, you literally have no proof at this moment in time. If you did then surely you would be exposing the Dolphins for what they are doing and giving that evidence to the NRL. Just because its playing out in the press doesnt mean its true either. I agree, the whole thing needs investiating properly and i dont think they have investigated Oloapu's claims thoroughly, and i dont think they will investigate ours properly.

What you are also saying about things being above board is when things suit every party, and even then, i can guarantee you that if a player asks for a release they have already had the contract talks before they even make the approach to their club, so regardless, its no different, there has been an illegal contract negotiation. They arent asking for a release generally if they dont have a move lined up. If we have a player we arent bothered about, we will let him go with no fuss. Just because one situation might play out in public and another doesnt is irrelevant, the rules have still been broken exactly the same. I'm failing to see any difference apart from people getting upset.

If we have a player we dont want, like Lodge for example, we dont treat them particularly well, mess them around and pretty much force them out. If a player wants out though, lets say Haas or Oloapu are the two that have made all the noise, we make them honor their contracts. That to me is a bit hypocritical. Now i'm not saying we should give in to every player either as that would be madness, but if a player really doesnt want to play for us, we should get adaquate compensation and let them go. If we cant, they see out the contract.
 
The difference is that clubs have had adequate time to prepare for a contingency plan. When it comes to a player in Oloapu's position, where the club has made sacrifices to retain him, they shouldn't have to put up with shady practices from other clubs.

The only adequate compensation is that the Dolphins can roll over and die. They can really suck eggs on this situation if they're going to go down this route. Every club may do it, like you allege, but they aren't so blatant that they get the media's attention.
 
Big Pete said:
The difference is that clubs have had adequate time to prepare for a contingency plan. When it comes to a player in Oloapu's position, where the club has made sacrifices to retain him, they shouldn't have to put up with shady practices from other clubs.

The only adequate compensation is that the Dolphins can roll over and die.
Click to expand...

Its a good job you arent a judge because you would be convicting people based on no evidence apart from whats been reported in the media. If there is irrefutable proof the Dolphins have broken the rules, they will get whats coming to them regardless of how thin the player pool is because the rules are black and white.

And there is no difference at all. If player A speaks to a club under contract, and player Oloapu speaks to a club under contract, and they both ask for a release, the exact same rules have been broken. It makes no difference what the time frame is, no difference in the circumstances, the difference in the breaking of the rules is identical. Thats a 100% fact you cant get away from, like it or not.

You seem to be under the impression that the Broncos are a beacon of light that does everything by the book in a dark rugby league world when the reality is we are just as shady as every other sporting team going around.
 
I've already explained the difference, just because you say it doesn't matter doesn't make it so.

I don't know where all this judge business is coming from. Simply based on all available information I don't have a difficult time believing that Oloapu and The Dolphins are flouting the rules and they'll have to suck it up.
 
Big Pete said:
I've already explained the difference, just because you say it doesn't matter doesn't make it so.

I don't know where all this judge business is coming from. Simply based on all available information I don't have a difficult time believing that Oloapu and The Dolphins are flouting the rules and they'll have to suck it up.
Click to expand...

Well, it doesnt matter, so it does make it so. What makes you think the NRL will care if we had a contingency plan or not? If the NRL investigate, and have evidence to prove the Dolphins have done what they are accused of doing, your theory about Brisbane having no time to have a contingency plan will have no bearing on their punishment or the NRL's finding. They will simply look at the facts. Do we have enough evidence to prove The Dolphins coerced Karl Oloapu or Deine Mariner to seek a release to break his contract and sign with the Dolphins. It will be a simple yes or no answer. If they did my stance is throw the book at them, if they didnt, regardless of what you, me or anyone else thinks, they have to be treated exactly the same as every other club in the competition that we know breaks the rules but nobody can prove.

At the same time, if they cant find any proof they have done anything wrong, then i'm, afraid just like a lot of us who think other teams are flout the rules ( im looking at you Melbourne and Roosters ), then you are just going to have to suck it up as well. I'm pretty sure if we provided the NRL with any cast iron proof of what you are claiming with Mariner or Oloapu then the Dolphins will be in huge trouble tomorrow because they wont have a leg to stand on. Its not like the NRL will need much time to work things out.
 
Except you're ignoring my point about the traditional situation and the Oloapu situation. The traditional way would see Oloapu and Dolphins wait until they could sign him till 2026. The way it's reportedly happening is Oloapu wants out for 2023. They could contact him whenever about 2026 and even push for 2025 but this is a different level entirely.

The point about contingency plans is why long term contracts exist and why the NRL would care about the situation. It also explains how it's more immoral than the typical situation.

It doesn't really bother me if the NRL punishes the Dolphins or not. I'd just like to see the Broncos maintain their stance on the matter because on the face of neither player should end up at the Dolphins this season.
 
Seems a pretty simple fix,you want out if a contract you just signed be prepared to sit for 12 months.if clubs want to move players on they are generally burdened with paying a portion of the players contract for the length of the contract they signed them too no reason players wanting to get out shouldnt have some burden.
 
Wolfie said:
Its a good job you arent a judge because you would be convicting people based on no evidence apart from whats been reported in the media. If there is irrefutable proof the Dolphins have broken the rules, they will get whats coming to them regardless of how thin the player pool is because the rules are black and white.

And there is no difference at all. If player A speaks to a club under contract, and player Oloapu speaks to a club under contract, and they both ask for a release, the exact same rules have been broken. It makes no difference what the time frame is, no difference in the circumstances, the difference in the breaking of the rules is identical. Thats a 100% fact you cant get away from, like it or not.

You seem to be under the impression that the Broncos are a beacon of light that does everything by the book in a dark rugby league world when the reality is we are just as shady as every other sporting team going around.
Click to expand...
It’s quite bizarre that you keep going to the level of proof required for a conviction and that if it claims don’t meet that level of scrutiny we can’t hold it against the Dolphins. Part of the issue is precisely the fact that the NRL have not got strong enough rules in place and don’t have any incentive to enforce the ones they currently do.

Wayne has been publicly flaunting it. The media isn’t just some rumours here and there posted by the Mole. A number of clubs have made formal complaints about seperate incidents. Karl’s camp and Munsters camp have both publicly alluded to it occurring and Wayne has dangled his toes on and over the edge just short of explicitly admitting it.

It reminds of when Hayne accidentally posted that photo with what obviously looked like coke on the table but he didn’t get in trouble because he said it was just “white powder”. Sure you can’t definitively state it was coke beyond all doubt but you’d be an idiot to try and convince people it wasn’t.

So in the court of public opinion, the Dolphins are a bunch of grubs and I wish them nothing but endless failures.
 
theshed said:
It’s quite bizarre that you keep going to the level of proof required for a conviction and that if it claims don’t meet that level of scrutiny we can’t hold it against the Dolphins. Part of the issue is precisely the fact that the NRL have not got strong enough rules in place and don’t have any incentive to enforce the ones they currently do.

Wayne has been publicly flaunting it. The media isn’t just some rumours here and there posted by the Mole. A number of clubs have made formal complaints about seperate incidents. Karl’s camp and Munsters camp have both publicly alluded to it occurring and Wayne has dangled his toes on and over the edge just short of explicitly admitting it.

It reminds of when Hayne accidentally posted that photo with what obviously looked like coke on the table but he didn’t get in trouble because he said it was just “white powder”. Sure you can’t definitively state it was coke beyond all doubt but you’d be an idiot to try and convince people it wasn’t.

So in the court of public opinion, the Dolphins are a bunch of grubs and I wish them nothing but endless failures.
Click to expand...

Well, in regards to the proof thing, how do you punish any club for doing this sort of thing if you can't prove it? You even said it yourself, Wayne has pushed things as far as he can without breaking any rules ( that we know of yet ) so how do you deal with it? I'm not seeing many solutions. Unless you catch them doing it, then the NRL are powerless.

The last thing I will say on this matter is people are rightly getting bent out of shape about the Broncos potentially being negatively impacted in this situation with a player wanting to break his contract. Where was the same level of outrage when the Broncos wanted players out who had contracts and shopped them around to other clubs initially without their knowledge? When it suits all of us, we dont care if a player we don't like is forced out, but when it's somebody we want to keep we get outraged. I'm guilty of acting like that myself with players sometimes and it's a bit hypocritical imo. We might not like it, but every club in the NRL is shady. They all flount the rules in some shape or form, it's just some are way better at it than others
 
Big Pete said:
Except you're ignoring my point about the traditional situation and the Oloapu situation. The traditional way would see Oloapu and Dolphins wait until they could sign him till 2026. The way it's reportedly happening is Oloapu wants out for 2023. They could contact him whenever about 2026 and even push for 2025 but this is a different level entirely.

The point about contingency plans is why long term contracts exist and why the NRL would care about the situation. It also explains how it's more immoral than the typical situation.

It doesn't really bother me if the NRL punishes the Dolphins or not. I'd just like to see the Broncos maintain their stance on the matter because on the face of neither player should end up at the Dolphins this season.
Click to expand...
Well, if you think it's immoral what the Dolphins are doing I don't think you have come across what other clubs in the NRL are doing. Just because something doesn't make the media doesn't mean it doesn't go on and I can tell you I've heard some horror stories.
 
Wolfie said:
Well, in regards to the proof thing, how do you punish any club for doing this sort of thing if you can't prove it? You even said it yourself, Wayne has pushed things as far as he can without breaking any rules ( that we know of yet ) so how do you deal with it? I'm not seeing many solutions. Unless you catch them doing it, then the NRL are powerless.

The last thing I will say on this matter is people are rightly getting bent out of shape about the Broncos potentially being negatively impacted in this situation with a player wanting to break his contract. Where was the same level of outrage when the Broncos wanted players out who had contracts and shopped them around to other clubs initially without their knowledge? When it suits all of us, we dont care if a player we don't like is forced out, but when it's somebody we want to keep we get outraged. I'm guilty of acting like that myself with players sometimes and it's a bit hypocritical imo. We might not like it, but every club in the NRL is shady. They all flount the rules in some shape or form, it's just some are way better at it than others
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is proof because I don’t think the NRL have any incentive to try and find proof. They should have a right to audit the emails of the clubs regarding player movements for example but they won’t look into it except to tick a box because they don’t want to punish the Dolphins in their first season. They would be more than happy to turn a blind eye so the Dolphins can have a competitive team to make up for their own incompetence of not properly planning or putting actual advantages in place for a new team which I think they should.

it’s not just the broncos. I was up in arms about the way Dolphins treated Melbourne players and the things that were being publicly said about under contract players. I’m more bent out of shape now partly because of broncos bias but mostly because the Dolphins have been slimy since their inclusion into the NRL and now there are 2 more blatant examples.

The difference with pushing players out is the club still has to honour the entire amount of the contract so although they don’t get to play at a club they signed to, they are still guaranteed the amount that was agreed on. What does a club get when they release a player? Their money back?
 
theshed said:
I don’t think there is proof because I don’t think the NRL have any incentive to try and find proof. They should have a right to audit the emails of the clubs regarding player movements for example but they won’t look into it except to tick a box because they don’t want to punish the Dolphins in their first season. They would be more than happy to turn a blind eye so the Dolphins can have a competitive team to make up for their own incompetence of not properly planning or putting actual advantages in place for a new team which I think they should.

it’s not just the broncos. I was up in arms about the way Dolphins treated Melbourne players and the things that were being publicly said about under contract players. I’m more bent out of shape now partly because of broncos bias but mostly because the Dolphins have been slimy since their inclusion into the NRL and now there are 2 more blatant examples.

The difference with pushing players out is the club still has to honour the entire amount of the contract so although they don’t get to play at a club they signed to, they are still guaranteed the amount that was agreed on. What does a club get when they release a player? Their money back?
Click to expand...
I think the club should get something back if they release a player, said so earlier,there has to be compensation to stop things becoming a free for all. But at the same time, we shouldn't go shopping a player around to other clubs without their permission either, which is what we have done with Lodge and others for example. We told him after we put his name out there.
 
Wolfie said:
If we have a player we dont want, like Lodge for example, we dont treat them particularly well, mess them around and pretty much force them out. If a player wants out though, lets say Haas or Oloapu are the two that have made all the noise, we make them honor their contracts. That to me is a bit hypocritical. Now i'm not saying we should give in to every player either as that would be madness, but if a player really doesnt want to play for us, we should get adaquate compensation and let them go. If we cant, they see out the contract.
Click to expand...
If we have a player we don't want, we're compelled to obey the terms of the contract we signed with them. Not having read the 60 odd pages of a player contract, I can only imagine what the terms might be for:

1. a player wanting to leave the club to join another.
2. the club wanting to relieve themselves of the relationship financially.

There will be clauses within the contract that specify the circumstances under which the club can dismiss a player without having to pay their entire contract, and the circumstances under which the player can leave the club. Leaving for more money will not be one of the latter. Ever.

We all understand, from experience, if the two parties come to an agreement, there exists the possibility of a player joining another club during the term of his contract, and the club making up any shortfall in salary by way of compensation. If the player doesn't want to leave, or cannot find another club, then they will be compelled to sit out their contract in a lower grade, or possibly forfeit their pay. But the details of that are not known to us, and might differ between contracts.

The point being, a contract can be amended if both parties agree to it, or one of the terms are broken. Karl has no leg to stand on here. He wants to leave during a contract because he's found a better offer. He's pretending he wants to leave because the Broncos have broken terms of his contract. But the NRL has found they haven't.
 
Wolfie said:
I think the club should get something back if they release a player, said so earlier,there has to be compensation to stop things becoming a free for all. But at the same time, we shouldn't go shopping a player around to other clubs without their permission either, which is what we have done with Lodge and others for example. We told him after we put his name out there.
Click to expand...
Eh, I just don’t see shopping players around as the same thing.

When a player and club agree on a contract the player is promising a service for a duration of time and the club is promising a monetary amount.

If a player wants out the club loses the service promised over the duration agreed. That is to say, the club does not get what they were entitled to by contract.

If a player gets shopped around, no matter what happens they get the amount promised. Yes it’s not good form for a club to do it behind the players back but they don’t lose what they were contractually promised which is money.

If the players digs their heels in and refuses to leave they still get the money they just potentially don’t get to play first grade - which is never contractually promised by any smart club. If a club refuses to release a player the player can choose to not play or to not perform - that is, the club loses the service they were entitled too.

Clubs should be able to trade contracted players for cap space. If Dolphins want Mariner they should have to pay him whatever amount he’s after and also offer the broncos an amount of their cap which the broncos can use for the amount of years agreed. Dolphins pay Mariner $300k which is under their cap, and if the broncos agree, the Dolphins also forfeit $200k (or whatever amount) from their cap which the broncos can now spend for as many years as the 2 clubs agree.
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 858
1:29:58
NSWRL Minor Semi Final, 1990 - Brisbane Broncos vs Manly Sea Eagles
View full media list »

Active Now

Total: 202 (members: 20, guests: 182)
Robots: 201
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.