S
subsbligh
NRL Captain
- Mar 16, 2008
- 3,270
- 857
I think we are arguing over the semantics of the word "activated".
If the circumstances are such that one can use a clause ala ricky stuart and one activates thats clause they are free to sign with another club.
If the circumstances in milfords are such were he can legitimately activate the clause, then it shouoldnt matter what canberra raiders threaten, he shouold be free to sign with the broncos?
So why hasn't he?
might I suggest that the clause isn't as clean as what some have posted it as, might i suggest that under the law canberra may have every right to stand their ground.
Because you and coreyh88 are probably both a little bit right.
There's always room for argument.
When the gravity of you losing that argument means you sit out playing the game you love and earning money for a year, you probably err on the side of caution
Especially when there are a couple of wildcards beyond your legal rights including the NRL's big arbirtary "you're playing for the Raiders next year cos' that's the fairest result in our book" stick to worry about, a judge that might sway either way and a shitload of costs to argue the point.
Seems as if Milford and Furner have moved away from the brink and the further we get along the more likely it is he'll stay with the Raiders.
Unless there's legal letters flying between Canberra and Brisbane solicitor's offices right now :tape: