- Aug 5, 2013
- 4,112
- 2,737
Which part of the contract would be legally binding and to who? The part with the get out clause?
[OFFICIAL] Anthony Milford to Broncos
- Thread starter Big Pete
- Start date
- Status
qlderxxxx
BRL Player
- Jul 9, 2013
- 95
- 54
To be honest, I think this is a poor option with Milford, and a completely different story to Barba.
With Barba, we held all the cards because the player let it slip in public that he HAD to go to Brisbane. His agent would have been pissed.
Ayoub is playing it much smarter. I suspect we will have to pay Milford for the player he will become, rather than the player he is. I have no problem with this, he is definitely a player I would pay overs for. There is no doubt there will be a better raiders offer on the table, and we will need to get somewhere near that to force a move back home.
The clause that has to be mutually agreed upon pertaining to his dads health which even Broncos fans are starting to doubt? The Raiders have already spoken to the NRL and lawyers about the contract and considering Ayoub has dropped talk of legal action it's fair to say it's totally legally binding in the Raiders favor.
broncos4life
International Captain
- Oct 5, 2011
- 26,474
- 27,132
I think you will find that they can step in if the want. The NRL are the over arching body of the competition that the raiders play in, at the end of the day the call the shots. If Milford was pushed to union by the need to be with his dying father because the NRL wouldn't let him get out of his contract to return home, it would be a monumental PR nightmare and would be bending over and asking RU to go harder, they simply won't allow that to happen after all the **** ups they have made in the past.
In regards to the bolded, we all know that this isn't the case but that is what the papers will run with, and at the end of the day that's what matters.
At the end of the day if the NRL believes that Milford is a legitimate chance to go to union the will step in and fix the situation, it's their competition and the raiders need a licence to compete in it.
They'd be facing one hell of a court case if they made a club break a contract, I can't see other CEOs liking the concept either for the precedent it would set. They're already pissed with the way the broncos have appeared to go about recruitment this year I can't see them allowing it.
I'm not a fan of Ricky the coach but I'd still have him above Hook
Haha yep pretty much, except Broncos haven't seemed to worry about clauses with Barba and DCE
I am sure hooks record is better than stickys .
- Sep 8, 2009
- 7,719
- 8,942
I wouldn't want Ricky the coach anywhere near my team.
Old Mate
NRL Player
- Jul 5, 2008
- 2,885
- 2,531
It sounds like Barba was always going to go, DCE is just a rumour. Evil Raiders not honoring their clauses, such a nasty club.
- Aug 5, 2013
- 4,112
- 2,737
Sounds Legally and morally watertight, Carry on
- Aug 5, 2013
- 4,112
- 2,737
How is it that the broncos have gone about their recruitment. My understanding is that they have had no contact with Anthony or before that Ben. In regard to Barba, a mature deal was able to be struck between two adult Clubs regarding what is best for all parties. Then we have the Raiders.
- Jan 25, 2013
- 25,617
- 29,895
I love how Ricky is making out that it's a choice between career & family. More like a choice between (career & family) or (Raiders & Ricky + $). And people saying that the pressure on him to perform for the Broncos will be too great, how about being the golden child in a Ricky-coached era of the Raiders, potentially as one of the highest paid players in the squad.
- Jul 28, 2008
- 6,588
- 8,810
Bushy, to be honest, I would be surprised if the clause is one that requires mutual agreement, because that would defeat the whole purpose and intent of the clause. It is a different matter entirely if the clause requires certain pre-conditions to be met, such as a deterioration in Halo's health. In that case, there would have to be appropriate evidence provided to the Raiders to enliven the operation of the clause.
In the absence of having the entire contract and construing the particular clause in light of the contents of the contract, we are all p*ssing in the wind as to what it says and/or requires to allow a release to be granted. I am also somewhat cynical about the Raiders having `legal' advice regarding how the clause should be interpreted. I don't doubt that they have sought advice, I just question how much weight can be placed on that advice. When you think about it, every party to litigation usually has legal advice, yet despite that a lot of matters still go to trial. If you lock 10 lawyers in a room and give them a topic to give an opinion on, you will most likely get 25 different views.
- Jul 28, 2008
- 6,588
- 8,810
I also note with a wry grin, after a lot of the posters on the Greenhouse absolutely blackening the Broncos about their ethics etc re poaching players, they are all jumping on board figuring out who they can poach from other clubs (Hayne, Peats, Farah et al) now they have Super Coach.
- Status
