[OFFICIAL] Anthony Milford to Broncos

Status
Not open for further replies.

Not as stupid as someone who continues to resort to making up false arguments

This alleged offer has the potential to tear apart the Raiders playing group.

There are lot of players not on big dollars at the Raiders. Fighting for their contracts.

And to see the club offer such an outlandish contract to a young player who has made it quite clear that he doesn't want to play for club, is sure to create disharmony.

Edrick Lee just re-signed. How shafted do you think he feels when he just signed his probably $250-350k contract?
Or Whighton?
He'll be expecting a massive deal.
Or the Loyal guys who have been good servants to the Raiders, Shillo and TLL.
Or what about Croker. Been consistently a good player, and leading points/try scorer. And never causes the club a headache or is misbehaved.

If the players turned on Fergo for favourable treatment. They'll tear Milford apart
 
This alleged offer has the potential to tear apart the Raiders playing group.

There are lot of players not on big dollars at the Raiders. Fighting for their contracts.

And to see the club offer such an outlandish contract to a young player who has made it quite clear that he doesn't want to play for club, is sure to create disharmony.

Edrick Lee just re-signed. How shafted do you think he feels when he just signed his probably $250-350k contract?
Or Whighton?
He'll be expecting a massive deal.
Or the Loyal guys who have been good servants to the Raiders, Shillo and TLL.
Or what about Croker. Been consistently a good player, and leading points/try scorer. And never causes the club a headache or is misbehaved.

If the players turned on Fergo for favourable treatment. They'll tear Milford apart
True, this is a risk but players surely have to be aware the best will always earn more.

Edricks good but not as good and not a spine player so they're always worth less.

Wighton I think is gone, best mates with Fergo and Earl.

Shillo puts in crap performances most of the year, talks a big game but doesn't put in and personally think he needs to pull his head in, overpaid for what he's delivered. TLL overpaid for the amount of games he plays.

Croker is handy, loyal and behaved but he's not an elite talent, Fensoms the one I'd be concerned with.

Fergo they were fed up with favorable treatment around his constant misbehavior not his pay.

This is a very valid concern though.

turn it around it has the same potential to happen at the Broncos if he becomes your highest paid which is looking possible.
 
Last edited:

True, this is a risk but players surely have to be aware the best will always earn more.

Edricks good but not as good and not a spine player so they're always worth less.

Wighton I think is gone, best mates with Fergo and Earl.

Shillo puts in crap performances most of the year, talks a big game but doesn't put in and personally think he needs to pull his head in, overpaid for what he's delivered. TLL overpaid for the amount of games he plays.

Croker is handy, loyal and behaved but he's not an elite talent, Fensoms the one I'd be concerned with.

Fergo they were fed up with favorable treatment around his constant misbehavior not his pay.

This is a very valid concern though.

Time will tell.
November 1st is fast approaching.

And the round 13 rule is not associated with all contracts. It is a clause/amendment.

The Broncos can demand that part be void if he signs with us. Preventing a Papalii backflip.
 
And the round 13 rule is not associated with all contracts. It is a clause/amendment.
From the NRL

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.
 

From the NRL

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.

This simply means that it is automatically inserted into the contract. And does not have to be specifically mentioned.

But it can be void if stipulated in the contract.

Same with the insertion of various clauses. Relating to various reasons.
 
Last edited:
Geez mate did I say I was the one person, FTR I agree but I also see that if you offer him say $400k less it might draw the attention of the auditors that something mightn't be above board

That's crazy, completely irrational. By you logic if we decide to sign DCE and it becomes apparent that he won't leave manly we should publicly offer him 2 million so that the auditors will think something's fishy about their 1 million offer.

That's just nuts
 
Geez mate did I say I was the one person, FTR I agree but I also see that if you offer him say $400k less it might draw the attention of the auditors that something mightn't be above board
If you offer him one million it may draw attention to the fact you are mental.( insert R Stuart)
 
That's crazy, completely irrational. By you logic if we decide to sign DCE and it becomes apparent that he won't leave manly we should publicly offer him 2 million so that the auditors will think something's fishy about their 1 million offer.

That's just nuts

He is delusional. It's a Canberra thing. I reckon the Salary Cap auditor would realize the Raiders are playing massive overs out of desperation.
 
Actually, the email would suggest that no matter what the hell is written in that contract, the contract, to be registered, is also bound by the NRL Playing Contract and Remuneration Rules.

The email states the only way around that is permission from the current club.
 
Actually, the email would suggest that no matter what the hell is written in that contract, the contract, to be registered, is also bound by the NRL Playing Contract and Remuneration Rules.

The email states the only way around that is permission from the current club.
That is for the NRL to determine, not the current club.

If both player and new club agree, they can void the "Round 13" rule in the contract they sign, meaning that if the Broncos and Milford register a contract for 2015 and beyond that has that specific clause voided, Canberra and their jesters can jump up and down as much as they want, but it won't make a difference.
 
Given everything that has happened, Ricky Stuarts spiteful comments and the way the Raiders fans have turned on him. If he signs with us, there's no way he'll renege on the deal.

I honestly can't see him going back to Canberra and playing 2014 with the Raiders.
 
62LtO.gif


Probably didn't work for him because it was too big.

Haha i've seen that on failarmy on youtube. She gets up with a big smile on her face laughing after being swamped by the wave.
 
there is no way the raiders are going to pay him 1 mil a year i do not believe the media on this one at all. cheers.
 
Not worth arguing with Bushman over Milford's contract. It may never happen but if it does he NRL are not stupid and he will be valued fairly.
I also do not care if my team has a geographical advantage or is looked after better with FTA games. It makes me happy to hear all the whinging. :takdir:
I really don't care about the other 15 teams in the comp. Fullstop
 
This was re-tweeted by the official Brisbane Broncos twitter account.

[TWEET]395540899658076160[/TWEET]
 
That to me says that he has already committed. I can't see the Broncos getting our hopes up publicly on social media, seems like they have him unofficially locked up and are just building up to the announcement
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.