Jack Bird Discussion

[Foordy]

Thought both were told they weren't needed , thats why we had to cover part of their salary. Bird hasn't even started hus contract, and if he wants out surely we don't need to cover anything.

unfortunately thats not how the NRL work ...

both Barba and Kennedy were told that they would likely find themselves in the ISC for the season and they asked for a release which was granted.

 

[pagey]

unfortunately thats not how the NRL work ...

both Barba and Kennedy were told that they would likely find themselves in the ISC for the season and they asked for a release which was granted.

I understand this but they were not wanted by the club but wanted to stay. Of course they would need a release to move on , but they would also do little to negotiate a better deal for broncs benifit. Nor would cronulla or roosters want to pay big for players who weren't playing well. Difference being sharks and Newcastle want bird and he possibly wants out , also being an origin player would easily command similar coin.

 

[Foordy]

I understand this but they were not wanted by the club but wanted to stay. Of course they would need a release to move on , but they would also do little to negotiate a better deal for broncs benifit. Nor would cronulla or roosters want to pay big for players who weren't playing well. Difference being sharks and Newcastle want bird and he possibly wants out , also being an origin player would easily command similar coin.

The NRL require him to be paid his current contract value, regardless of who initiates the release... the only way we would get out of carrying him on our cap is if his new club's contract was higher than ours ... and in those circumstances it would be stupid of clubs to even match our contract as they know they could get him cheaper and affect our cap all at the same time...

it doesn't make sense but that's how the NRL operate.

besides I haven't even seen a single CREDIBLE source that has even suggested he is having second thoughts ... this all seems to be driven by the Lurker and Rothfield.

 

[Super Freak]

The contract has been registered by the NRL. If we release him, we have to pay him regardless of whether the club released him because they didn't want him or Bird wanted a release. It does not matter, the contract is registered.

The only way we could get away with not paying him is if Bird does something that forces us to terminate his contract. In other words, he gets sacked.

 

[pagey]

The NRL require him to be paid his current contract value, regardless of who initiates the release... the only way we would get out of carrying him on our cap is if his new club's contract was higher than ours ... and in those circumstances it would be stupid of clubs to even match our contract as they know they could get him cheaper and affect our cap all at the same time...

it doesn't make sense but that's how the NRL operate.

besides I haven't even seen a single CREDIBLE source that has even suggested he is having second thoughts ... this all seems to be driven by the Lurker and Rothfield.

That all depends on if they really want him , Newcastle threw more at him .

 

[Foordy]

That all depends on if they really want him , Newcastle threw more at him .

they would know they wouldn't have to this time, if we release him we would likely just be saving the Knights some coin

 

[pagey]

The contract has been registered by the NRL. If we release him, we have to pay him regardless of whether the club released him because they didn't want him or Bird wanted a release. It does not matter, the contract is registered.

The only way we could get away with not paying him is if Bird does something that forces us to terminate his contract. In other words, he gets sacked.

Someone on the titans forum, who seems to be an equivalent of smokin joe. Surely there is something to it.

 

[john1420]

The key is who wants to make the change and how much they are wanted at another club. Yes it's true that the club with the current contract has to make sure the player is paid the full value, which is why when you see a club offloading a player, they pick up part of the salary.

As a matter of the NRL rules, this doesn't change just because it's the player asking, but as a matter of actual reality, it does make a difference.

By way of example, if Bird wants to back out but Brisbane don't really want him to, they simply say "sure you can go, but we are not paying any of your wage" which means Bird can only go if he finds a club willing to pay his full salary.

Side note: I think the rule needs looking at as it could actually disadvantage a player. If Bird wanted out (just an example) and Brisbane were willing to let him go as long as they were not having to carry part of his wage, and Bird gets an offer from a club that is 150k short of his Brisbane contract, if Brisbane won't pay the 150 Bird is stuck where he is. Even if Bird would be happier to go to the new club and accept less money, the rules don't allow it, and take away his choice

I don't think that's OK

 

[BroncsFan]

I thought Ashton came to us because knights and him came to a mutual agreement to terminate the contract. I remember reading that knights would release, but only if they didn't have to pay his salary.... under what is being suggested this would mean knights have taken a huge back flip on their stance for him to come to broncos on minimum wage.

 

[Kimlo]

I imagine if the player agreed to surrender his salary, the NRL will simply null and void the old contract. I don't believe a pure release would have us paying any salary, except in cases where players want a release but don't want to sacrifice their salary either. So they'll take a release if they can get it, the other club will pay some part of it, original club also pays the remaining because they want to get rid of the player anyway.

But if the players simply wants a release and the club agrees, then like any other contract it can be cancelled. Legally.

 

[Kyall]

Well it seems he's 100% coming to the club next year. When we first signed him, I was over the moon and now I'm not feeling that way. I just got no idea where he will be playing, especially with Bennett insisting he will get a lot more ball and control.

 

[lynx000]

The key is who wants to make the change and how much they are wanted at another club. Yes it's true that the club with the current contract has to make sure the player is paid the full value, which is why when you see a club offloading a player, they pick up part of the salary.

As a matter of the NRL rules, this doesn't change just because it's the player asking, but as a matter of actual reality, it does make a difference.

By way of example, if Bird wants to back out but Brisbane don't really want him to, they simply say "sure you can go, but we are not paying any of your wage" which means Bird can only go if he finds a club willing to pay his full salary.

Side note: I think the rule needs looking at as it could actually disadvantage a player. If Bird wanted out (just an example) and Brisbane were willing to let him go as long as they were not having to carry part of his wage, and Bird gets an offer from a club that is 150k short of his Brisbane contract, if Brisbane won't pay the 150 Bird is stuck where he is. Even if Bird would be happier to go to the new club and accept less money, the rules don't allow it, and take away his choice

I don't think that's OK

What amount does the new club have to match though (genuine question here, I just don't know the ins and outs of the contractual scenarios)? The club has a contract with player A for say $650,000 a season but player A's agent has been able to negotiate TPA's worth $300K extra. Is it only the contractual figure agreed with the club that has to be met to ensure that the old club has no obligation to contribute to the new contract? Or is it the full figure of $950K?

 

[Foordy]

What amount does the new club have to match though (genuine question here, I just don't know the ins and outs of the contractual scenarios)? The club has a contract with player A for say $650,000 a season but player A's agent has been able to negotiate TPA's worth $300K extra. Is it only the contractual figure agreed with the club that has to be met to ensure that the old club has no obligation to contribute to the new contract? Or is it the full figure of $950K?

It is the amount included under the cap.

Since for TPAs to be exempt from the cap, they can't be either guaranteed by the club and their also must be available for the player regardless of which club he plays for.

 

[Sproj]

their also must be available for the player regardless of which club he plays for.

So what is this rubbish about us having an advantage as a One team town then if that is the case?

 

[Foordy]

So what is this rubbish about us having an advantage as a One team town then if that is the case?

Those NSWankers need something to whinge about...

 

[Super Freak]

We really do have an advantage up here in that department.

There is more earning potential here as there is less competition in the market.

 

[Nashy]

We really do have an advantage up here in that department.

There is more earning potential here as there is less competition in the market.

I disagree. It's not like we are as big in the corporate world as Sydney. That's the main argument for getting another team here, it's not fair. I call BS. People in Sydney and Melbourne have no idea just how small Brisbane is.

 

[Porthoz]

I disagree. It's not like we are as big in the corporate world as Sydney. That's the main argument for getting another team here, it's not fair. I call BS. People in Sydney and Melbourne have no idea just how small Brisbane is.

Of course the Broncos have an advantage being a single club in the second biggest RL city in the world.
We're not 7 times smaller than Sydney either, in any way you look at it.

However, the real issue is Sydney having way too many clubs competing in their market size, so they want to draw the Broncos to the lowest denominator, instead of culling some of their own life sucking shit clubs...