- Jun 12, 2013
- 14,107
- 17,431
Cheers. I was joking more than anything because of your TL;DR from earlier.
[OFFICIAL] Anthony Milford to Broncos
- Thread starter Big Pete
- Start date
- Status
I bleed Maroon
International Rep
- Apr 17, 2013
- 15,874
- 20,720
Perhaps the Raiders petulance surrounding this whole thing is because they know this to be true.
How is it unconscionable if the conditions of the clause haven't been met? All the sob stories in the CM have been proven to be lies, Halo has been traveling, he has said he didn't want to move, Tony has stated his health is improving and is better than they expected it to be at this point, clause null and void.
That's debatable, if he goes to the broncos Hook will be his coach :P
Raiders won't hurt his origin hopes, he's good enough he'd make it even from Parra and with Mal coach it's incentive to stay at the club the origin coach is connected to and loves hence why he was called in to help retain him.
- Mar 5, 2008
- 9,586
- 8,889
If we sign Milford, great. If we don't sign Milford, great.
Either way, it will be the correct decision in the best interests of everyone concerned
If the Raiders aren't happy with losing Milford, then they ought to get real about the marketplace which drives NRL (and pretty much everything else).
Either way, it will be the correct decision in the best interests of everyone concerned
If the Raiders aren't happy with losing Milford, then they ought to get real about the marketplace which drives NRL (and pretty much everything else).
Last edited:
- Oct 17, 2013
- 12,840
- 14,848
He's recovering but he's still sick dude.
- Aug 5, 2013
- 4,112
- 2,738
Mate . You have Sticky next year . So that's a poor argument . Stuart has shown he puts himself first at all costs to club and players .
Easier said then done, hard to compete when you have natural disadvantages like location, viewed as irrelevant by the powers that be ie channel 9.
Theyre viewed as a feeder club for the NRL, out of the way who don't kick up a fuss which is why I'm liking the new Don approach of getting aggressive and see a potential benefit in Ricky. Not much they can do but continue to push for allowances for junior development and make some noise where possible.
- Mar 5, 2008
- 54,663
- 34,984
If anything, Stuart has shown that he's actually a terrible coach, who can only win when he inherits a team that's already loaded with talent, and firing. Once they get into a rut, he ups and leaves.
- Mar 5, 2008
- 54,663
- 34,984
Or they could get of their ass and work for it, instead of whinging when something goes against them.
I'm not the biggest Ricky fan, my main problem with him is his teams tend to decline over the years, poor roster management. Roosters first year win premiership then a couple more grand finals, Sharks first year overachieved with a crap roster to tie for the minor premiership then they went down hill.
On parra can't blame him for getting out with the shambles their management are, he was likely to get the boot anyway. I'm not concerned about him runnin out on the Raiders, the club that made him a legend and he bleeds green, great mates with the CEO and other board members, my concern is how our roster will look in a few years time, but he is the type of coach we currently need, strong discipline, passionate about the club, well respected within league (just not fans), will get us in the media, will give refs a serve when required and places a high importance on defense.
Between Ricky and Hook though IMO no contest, Broncos have underachieved massively under Hook, players aren't improving and this board is full or other criticisms of him
How exactly besides what they are currently doing, pushing for junior development allowances, spending a shit load on development, growing a large financial port folio with investments throughout ACT, NSW and Qld to keep them financially strong, taking a game to Hong Kong.
Canberra isn't a desirable place for youngens with money and eyes for the bright lights of city life, no TV games makes growing a fan base and sponsorship a nightmare.
If it was the AFL the Raiders would be getting extra allowances, the NRL just doesn't care as long as they keep producing juniors and keep their mouths shut
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,140
- 25,819
- Thread starter
- #2,642
Both clubs have their pros and cons.
I believe the Broncos would be able to offer Milford a better more secure environment to develop in and he'd receive more support up here than down in Canberra.
On the other hand, Milford would be able to hone his skills at fullback at the Raiders and earn more money.
Let's not turn this into an ego measuring contest between the Raiders and the Broncos.
I believe the Broncos would be able to offer Milford a better more secure environment to develop in and he'd receive more support up here than down in Canberra.
On the other hand, Milford would be able to hone his skills at fullback at the Raiders and earn more money.
Let's not turn this into an ego measuring contest between the Raiders and the Broncos.
Both places definitely have their pros and cons, there was a great article from Ruben Wiki the other week in trying to convince Milf to stay saying he wouldn't have become the player he was if he'd left, he used the quiet nature of Canberra to his advantage, less distractions so he spent more time training, on the flip side though you have Dugan and Fergo who used that boredom the opposite way and got in trouble, depends on the players individual professionalism I guess how they use their time.
like everyone I just can't wait for this to be decided one way or another so each club can move on with their plans
like everyone I just can't wait for this to be decided one way or another so each club can move on with their plans
Last edited:
redbur95
QCup Player
- Feb 17, 2013
- 325
- 151
Don Furner's been whinging about the Broncos' signing heaps of players from South-East Queensland. How dare they steal players who come from the area their club is based in!
No Cookies | Herald Sun
No Cookies | Herald Sun
Finally got a reply from the NRL about the round 13 thing
Brad,
Thanks for your email.
The Round 13 Rule is actually covered under the NRL Playing Contract and Remuneration Rules and isn't a clause that has to be added into a player's contract conditions to be effective. When an NRL Playing Contract is signed, the parties are agreeing to be bound by the NRL Rules so by doing that are accepting that they will be bound by the requirements of that Rule.
It is a Rule that is applied by the Salary Cap Auditor when determining whether to register a contract.
If the incumbent Club give written permission, then the contract can be registered by the Salary Cap Auditor prior to Round 13.
I hope this assists with your query. Thanks for your support of the game.
Kind regards
Rachel
Supporter Liaison
Brad,
Thanks for your email.
The Round 13 Rule is actually covered under the NRL Playing Contract and Remuneration Rules and isn't a clause that has to be added into a player's contract conditions to be effective. When an NRL Playing Contract is signed, the parties are agreeing to be bound by the NRL Rules so by doing that are accepting that they will be bound by the requirements of that Rule.
It is a Rule that is applied by the Salary Cap Auditor when determining whether to register a contract.
If the incumbent Club give written permission, then the contract can be registered by the Salary Cap Auditor prior to Round 13.
I hope this assists with your query. Thanks for your support of the game.
Kind regards
Rachel
Supporter Liaison
You were saying?
Last edited:
- Status
