[OFFICIAL] Anthony Milford to Broncos

[1910]

Off the top of my head there's also Hannant and Prince can't be assed researching the others, but I know a lot of Broncos fans believe anyone who grew up in Brisbane were automatically developed by the Broncs which isn't the case.

Don't get me wrong you guys are going well developing certain positions but halves and front row they seem unable to step up, is it coaching, your scouts, the pressure of playing in such vital positions previously filled by legends, with all bias aside I do think for Milford's development he would be better staying put, the pressure on him will be immense especially if you miss the finals this year.

Hannant is from the Gold Coast and played for 'Woomba before getting an offer from the Roosters and taking it. So yes he was in the Broncos' system and playing for our feeder club before leaving for the Roosters. Never played first grade until he came back the second time.

Prince was from Mount Isa and played two years for the Cowboys before joining the Broncos the first time- broke his leg twice and left for the Tigers.

You make a lot of claims about development yet your club has exsisted on Brisbane and Queensland talent for 30 years now. Why don't you develop your own in Canberra?

Petero and Webcke went alright for Broncos developed front rows- you may of heard of them they had alright careers.

 

[Foordy]

Correct, each had a list of misdemeanors as I'm sure other players at the Raider do and at all clubs Broncos included, not many clubs would sack their stars though.

Not sure if the Raiders ever will again though, I think they've learnt after Dugan that they won't get the support from the NRL

I'm sorry, but i find it hypocritical of the Raiders to complain about the NRL letting players sacked from other clubs sign with a different club the same season. The Raiders themselves have benefited from this, The Broncos sacked Costigan (although not the same calibre as Dugan and Carney) and he was playing with the Raiders within a few weeks.

or is it that they think only stars they sack should be banned from the NRL for the remainder of the season... or maybe the player must be of a certain quality to be banned from the nrl after being sacked

 

[Foordy]

Not at all mate, they're doing their job doesn't make it any less dodgy though

you can believe there are dodgy dealings all you like of it makes you feel any better. doesn't make it true.

in fact if the Raiders only put the get out clause in Milfords contract to ensure he re-signed with them, but never had any intention of honouring it, then that to me is DODGY

 

[Browny]

In Coxy I trust

 

[Alec]

Remember when the Raiders stole TLL? And Robinson?

 

[GCBRONCO]

you can believe there are dodgy dealings all you like of it makes you feel any better. doesn't make it true.

in fact if the Raiders only put the get out clause in Milfords contract to ensure he re-signed with them, but never had any intention of honouring it, then that to me is DODGY

Now now, we all know the self proclaimed holy beacon of all things that are family values and player welfare in the NRL would never consider going back on an agreement they made with the player.

 

[Browny]

Trust in the Cox

 

[Manbush]

If you guys do get the Milf can we throw in McCrone for free, at least that way we'll get some benefit from it, hell we'll give ya Buttris as well, would almost make losing Milford worthwhile:)

 

[GCBRONCO]

If you guys do get the Milf can we throw in McCrone for free, at least that way we'll get some benefit from it

Doesn't sound fair, I tell you what we will take McCrone and you can have Wallace and Maranta.

 

[broncos4life]

Doesn't sound fair, I tell you what we will take McCrone and you can have Wallace and Maranta.

Deal!

 

[Raw Boned Youngster]

A bit of robust banter being exchanged between the two camps, but I'd like to go on record and say Bushman is alright. Onya bloke!

 

[rnabokov]

I love this thread. The spirited debate is so good with you excellent posters. Seriously.

Personally, I don't give a **** what the Raiders and the GH think of us. I just want Milford.


While the debate is spirited and will no doubt go on, has anyone seen the actual wording of the actual clause in the contract?

If they have, and posted it and I missed it, sorry. But can you enlighten me again? A so-called get out clause, without its precise wording in the contract is well, fun and speculation, but that is all it is.

My take is this.

If the clause exists in the form that many of us interpret it (Milford's unilateral right to terminate the contract for specified family reasons), and if Milford places "family values" so highly, Ayoub and Milford, in their own ways separately and together, would have invoked the clause a while ago, and it would have ended up in court if the Raiders opposed it, and they would have their legal grounds, and we would be hearing about it regularly.

Same if this was taken to the NRL (why I do'nt know unless they have "judicial" power over player contracts and/or contracts have to abide by certain rules).

So .... as far as I know, Milford is still playing for the Raiders, I am no closer to knowing if Milford signs with us now, or in 1914, or 1915, or not at all.

In other words, I don't know anything about Milford at the Broncos at this point in time and I doubt I will until some time after this season ends, for the Raiders at least.

But I love this thread

 

[Manbush]

My understanding of the clause is it needs to be agreed to by both parties and is based on his dads health deteriorating, clauses needing mutual agreement generally have something like "within reason" etc within it so a party can't activate it willy nilly but need a genuine reason and if the Raiders do fight it it would be based on Halos health not having deteriorated is my guess.

Disclaimer:I don't actually know the exact details of the contract just going by a variety of articles and having spoken to a lawyer mate about clauses which involve mutual agreements.

This clip reminds me of this situation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUuzxjwXVXE&sns=em

 

[rnabokov]

That clip has a comment that is actually the subject of some considerable philosophical and scientific research and yes, it does have relevance here:

"There are known-knowns and there are known-unknowns, but there are also unknown-unknowns. Things that we don't know that we don't know!"


Until I see the clause, the situation is simple. It is a bunch of known and unknown unknowns

Yep. That makes sense ....

 

[Foordy]

My understanding of the clause is it needs to be agreed to by both parties and is based on his dads health deteriorating, clauses needing mutual agreement generally have something like "within reason" etc within it so a party can't activate it willy nilly but need a genuine reason and if the Raiders do fight it it would be based on Halos health not having deteriorated is my guess.

Disclaimer:I don't actually know the exact details of the contract just going by a variety of articles and having spoken to a lawyer mate about clauses which involve mutual agreements.

This clip reminds me of this situation

What - YouTube

so your understanding of the clause is basically, just taking Furners word for it that it needs to be mutually agreed.

personally i think it would be closer to what Ayoub is saying publicly (i.e Milford is able to invoke the get out clause when he wants as long as certain conditions are met).

if the clause is as Furner says, then i have absolutely no idea why they bothered to go to the trouble of inserting it into the contract, as it would have the same affect as not having a get out clause at all. and i doubt Ayoub would be that stupid

 

[Raw Boned Youngster]

hats off Richard! It is a shame that someone couldn't have said that there are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns a few pages back.
However, I believe that the real issue is that there are a few unknown knowns floating about as well.

 

[Raw Boned Youngster]

you might have mentioned it though, so it is still probably a known unknown, but that depends on how much you know about what is supposed to be unknown. That is probably another unknown, but that again may be known or unknown.

 

[rnabokov]

so your understanding of the clause is basically, just taking Furners word for it that it needs to be mutually agreed.

personally i think it would be closer to what Ayoub is saying publicly (i.e Milford is able to invoke the get out clause when he wants as long as certain conditions are met).

if the clause is as Furner says, then i have absolutely no idea why they bothered to go to the trouble of inserting it into the contract, as it would have the same affect as not having a get out clause at all. and i doubt Ayoub would be that stupid

The only problem I see with that is those "certain conditions". I am sure there are conditions. The question really is: what are they. Further, it would seem to infer that the Raiders need to agree that those conditions are as described in the clause, as interpreted by the Raiders.

Like I said. All this is meaningless if fun unless we know the precise wording of the clause.