[Official] - Milford signs with Broncos

Bushman said:
Cheers, Im guessing Costigan still turned up to work rather than chucking the club, fans and NRL the bird from the rooftop, he turned up for meetings about his future at the club etc. If Dugan hadnt been rewarded by the NRL for his actions I doubt Fergo would've taken the same route, probably would've turned up for work for a month and a half till his iron clad clause could be activated, (it's couldn't till his new contract kicked in on nov 1st).

With Dugan they've set a precedent that if a player wants out all they have to do is not show up to work till they get sacked and the NRL will let them sign with another club, not a good look for anyone.

Carney is in another stratosphere due to his mile long rap sheet
Click to expand...
The Raiders persecution complex is getting old, your failings are your own, its not the NRL's fault you were left with no other option than sacking three marquee players, that is not a coincidence, there is a pattern of behavior down there that has been fostered through a complete lack of leadership, the fact that the club seemingly didn't learn anything from the Carney saga spells volumes for the quality of the clubs management. The NRL should do more to establish clear guidelines for players sacked by clubs, but it's not relevant if the players behavioral standards aren't allowed to snowball to the point that the club has to sack them in the first place. Milford is just the latest player to show antipathy to and lack of respect for the Raiders management, that's the root of the problem. Milford is still yet to be punished for their late night in Auckland a few months ago, meanwhile Shillington is fined for commenting to the media about the clubs problems, that's some screwy priorities right there!
 
nopatience101 said:
The Raiders persecution complex is getting old, your failings are your own, its not the NRL's fault you were left with no other option than sacking three marquee players, that is not a coincidence, there is a pattern of behavior down there that has been fostered through a complete lack of leadership, the fact that the club seemingly didn't learn anything from the Carney saga spells volumes for the quality of the clubs management. The NRL should do more to establish clear guidelines for players sacked by clubs, but it's not relevant if the players behavioral standards aren't allowed to snowball to the point that the club has to sack them in the first place. Milford is just the latest player to show antipathy to and lack of respect for the Raiders management, that's the root of the problem. Milford is still yet to be punished for their late night in Auckland a few months ago, meanwhile Shillington is fined for commenting to the media about the clubs problems, that's some screwy priorities right there!
Click to expand...

This is the problem. The NRL gave clubs what they wanted. They hand them the grant money and let them run themselves, because clubs don't want to be told how to they should be run by the NRL.

But then when clubs with bad management like the Raiders stuff everything up, then they expect the NRL to come to their rescue.
 
nopatience101 said:
Someone forgot to tell the kid an assurance had been made with the Raiders that he would return for next season, whether that's the result of miscommunication with tony or an eagerness on the Raiders part to make an announcement that preempted the Broncos announcement.
Click to expand...

Why on earth are we giving assurances to the raiders when it gives us nothing?
 
subsbligh said:
Hearsay, from twitter of all places.
Click to expand...
It's not hearsay, there's no doubt Ayoub was in agreement with the Raiders statement, the problem is that for whatever reason Milford isn't. It could be as innocent as Ayoub being given the wrong impression by Milford and acting on it.
 
Thibaùlt said:
Very dangerous territory letting NRL clubs decide matters relating to health issues.

How sick does his dad have to be before the Raiders let him use the clause?

Another heart attack?
Re- hospitalisation?
Dead?
Click to expand...

They are probably hoping he dies so the can trumpet the news that the clause only related to sickness and now that he is dead he is no longer 'sick'
 
Morkel said:
IMO, the problem is the clause uses the word 'deteriorating' in regards to his father's health. And that's where the dispute is. Anthony would have said that he's worried about his father, and the Raiders said "tell you what, if things go bad, if he gets any worse, you're free to go". The Raiders are claiming he's gotten better, so the clause conditions have not been met.

FWIW this is the only leg the Raiders have to stand on, in that the clause is only activated if he gets worse. Legally they seem to be in the right. But it will be disputed in that the clause was there to protect Milford's interest in his family, and that even though his father hasn't gotten any worse, at least on the surface, as we all know with heart issues, it's like being on a tightrope and the next attack could be a second away. For this reason, the clause doesn't protect Milford, and arguably only allows Milford to be release potentially once it's too late, and therefore that will be the basis for the fight.

Or of course the Raiders should accept that it's a fight that regardless of the outcome they'll look bad, do what's best for the kid, and just drop the bone. I'd be incredibly surprised, stumped even, if Stuart's ego allows this.
Click to expand...

But even if Milford fails on the termination clause, the Raiders then would have to rely on the restraint of trade clause (I assume is in his contract) to prevent him from playing for the Broncos.

I think the Raiders would fail in enforcing it, particularly when considered in light of the overall circumstances and the dispute over the Halo termination clause.

NRL, hopefully, would support that.

Hope Milford is getting some decent legal advice.
 
broncos4life said:
They are probably hoping he dies so the can trumpet the news that the clause only related to sickness and now that he is dead he is no longer 'sick'
Click to expand...

I am sure no one wants anyone to die. Business is business, but things like that should not be wished on anyone.
 
Ayoub baited the Raiders.

And they took the bait and ran.

It won't be about what Ayoub said, it will be about how stupid the Raiders look announcing a press release/emailing members about something that wasn't the truth.

Ayoub will simply say the journos took his words out of context.
 
Last edited:
symbolsoup said:
I really feel for the kid, life is confusing enough when your young and if you are dreading going to your workplace for whatever reason, life is pretty horrible. Thus far, he has actually done everything right in playing his heart out for his club and more recently Samoa. He now is trying to have a holiday, returning to his roots to be with family overseas and meanwhile, all of this rubbish is blowing up back at home. Im sure he is constantly fielding phone calls from stakeholders and media, when all he really wants to do is be with family, both OS and at home. In would never have been mature enough to deal with this level of distress and public opinion at his age. I just hope somebody in the NRL are extending some offers of support as this level of uncertainty, public abuse and intimidation could really send a young fella over the edge.

It's probably best that he is in Samoa, removed from the hype to some degree. Whether we sign him for 2014 or not, at this stage I just hope he is ok.
Click to expand...
he's in Brisbane.
 
symbolsoup said:
Thats what I thought Ayoub was doing, but NoPatience seemed genuinely uncertain about the direction this is creating.

If Ayoub is doing this on purpose, it could be a master stroke, but if not, it is creating a complete mess.
Click to expand...

Ayoub is a sneaky fella.. He knows what he's doing.

We always said that once he signed with us for 2015 and beyond, the games would start, trying to get him out of the 2014 contract.

So far it's working.
 
When $BW walked out of a contract the NRL banned him for the length of his contract and he had to pay huge compo, there is precedent but that was for a beloved Sydney club.
 
Bushman said:
When $BW walked out of a contract the NRL banned him for the length of his contract and he had to pay huge compo, there is precedent but that was for a beloved Sydney club.
Click to expand...

Was there a clause ? Oh Right!
 
Bushman said:
When $BW walked out of a contract the NRL banned him for the length of his contract and he had to pay huge compo, there is precedent but that was for a beloved Sydney club.
Click to expand...

SBW didn't have a release clause. He also didn't try to utilise all available options of communication with the Bulldogs.
He also didn't have a well documented history of homesickness and have a father with heart issues.

And he didn't turn down double the money to stay at the Bulldogs.

Very different comparing SBW's greed to Milford's family concerns.
 
Bushman said:
When $BW walked out of a contract the NRL banned him for the length of his contract and he had to pay huge compo, there is precedent but that was for a beloved Sydney club.
Click to expand...

It's a very different situation though
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 902
1:25:13
NRL Round 23, 1999 - Sydney City Roosters vs Brisbane Broncos
View full media list »

Active Now

  • Allo
  • Bucking Beads
  • Fitzy
  • theshed
  • barker
  • Browny
  • kiwibronco
  • Waynesaurus
  • Justwin
  • whykickamoocow
Total: 170 (members: 14, guests: 156)
Robots: 307
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.