[Official] - Milford signs with Broncos

[Unbreakable]

It isn't a big deal on my end, my point is, in all likelihood he isn't getting released so if given the choice, I'd much rather see him act professionally and leave holding his head up high than clowning around on Twitter.

He posted on Facebook saying that the "Giddy up" comment wasn't Rugby League related.. but you really never know, especially when his next tweet had the word "Horsed" in it.

 

[Morkel]

If that's the case he needs a new manager. And I'd hope he got some decent independent legal advice.

The way it appears he is acting is reluctantly accepting his position but still feels aggrieved by it all.

Raiders have still acted like a dog in the manger in all this. And how could they be so stupid not to see that this was very likely reaction from Milford, a 19 year old bloke who doesn't want to be at the Raiders at their club anymore. Not only that, but his team mates are likely to lose confidence in him (a bit like Corey Norman) and drive a further wedge between him and the rest of the club.

Such a short sighted move by the Raiders. Look at the bigger issues dudes.

Ricky Stuart 'culture' shining through.

 

[Old Mate]

mod edit: Now that's just not nice.

 

[Manbush]

If that's the case he needs a new manager. And I'd hope he got some decent independent legal advice.

The way it appears he is acting is reluctantly accepting his position but still feels aggrieved by it all.

Raiders have still acted like a dog in the manger in all this. And how could they be so stupid not to see that this was very likely reaction from Milford, a 19 year old bloke who doesn't want to be at the Raiders at their club anymore. Not only that, but his team mates are likely to lose confidence in him (a bit like Corey Norman) and drive a further wedge between him and the rest of the club.

Such a short sighted move by the Raiders. Look at the bigger issues dudes.

I've been saying he needs a new manager for ages, Ayoubs the bottom feeder of the industry.

Your second paragraph though could be equally applied to the Broncos with Hoffman situation couldn't it even more so with Hodges media stunt and Hoffs dad responding.

Such a short sighted move by the Broncos. Look at the bigger issues dudes.

Both clubs are just looking after number 1 and doing what they think gives them the best chance to win games in 2014

 

[broncos4life]

I've been saying he needs a new manager for ages, Ayoubs the bottom feeder of the industry.

Your second paragraph though could be equally applied to the Broncos with Hoffman situation couldn't it even more so with Hodges media stunt and Hoffs dad responding.

Such a short sighted move by the Broncos. Look at the bigger issues dudes.

Both clubs are just looking after number 1 and doing what they think gives them the best chance to win games in 2014

Hoffman doesn't have a clause though and 'I wanna play fullback' isn't compassionate grounds. They are completely different situations but you keep acting like they are the same

 

[Manbush]

Hoffman doesn't have a clause though and 'I wanna play fullback' isn't compassionate grounds. They are completely different situations but you keep acting like they are the same

And Milford's clause is obviously irrelevant, if the conditions had been met the NRL, players association or court would've intervened. Bottom line is neither player appears to want to be there and has the potential to cause friction amongst the playing group.

Both players want to do what's best for their careers and families.

 

[Socnorb]

I've been saying he needs a new manager for ages, Ayoubs the bottom feeder of the industry.

Your second paragraph though could be equally applied to the Broncos with Hoffman situation couldn't it even more so with Hodges media stunt and Hoffs dad responding.

Such a short sighted move by the Broncos. Look at the bigger issues dudes.

Both clubs are just looking after number 1 and doing what they think gives them the best chance to win games in 2014

Argh bushman . The differences are.
1 Hoffman has not signed with another club.
2 Milford had a clause inserted in his contract for a reason . You and the raiders fans have squared that away that in means nothing. Well hey genius , it obviously means something to him. It appears that although the Don agreed to the clause , he never had any intention of honouring it. Do you see how that would poison a relationship.

 

[Manbush]

Argh bushman . The differences are.
1 Hoffman has not signed with another club.
2 Milford had a clause inserted in his contract for a reason . You and the raiders fans have squared that away that in means nothing. Well hey genius , it obviously means something to him. It appears that although the Don agreed to the clause , he never had any intention of honouring it. Do you see how that would poison a relationship.

1: Milford's contract is for 2015, Hoffman has clubs willing to sign him for 2014 so that's just semantics, both players want out.
2: Conditions of the clause have obviously not been met so it may as well not exist until such a time the conditions have been.

Do you see how the Hoff situation would and already has poisoned the relationship?

 

[Kimlo]

1: Milford's contract is for 2015, Hoffman has clubs willing to sign him for 2014 so that's just semantics.
2: Conditions of the clause have obviously not been met so it may as well not exist until such a time the conditions have been.

Do you see how the Hoff situation would and already has poisoned the relationship?

1. No it's not semantics, if Hoffman was absolutely determined without any doubt that he wanted to leave he would just sign with the Bulldogs early, just like Milford did. Hoffman hasn't said he wanted to leave, Milford has.
2. Now THAT is semantics... Arguing spellings and wordings of a clause instead of the spirit of the clause itself.

 

[Manbush]

1. No it's not semantics, if Hoffman was absolutely determined without any doubt that he wanted to leave he would just sign with the Bulldogs early, just like Milford did. Hoffman hasn't said he wanted to leave, Milford has.
2. Now THAT is semantics... Arguing spellings and wordings of a clause instead of the spirit of the clause itself.

I'm guessing the Dogs aren't willing to sign him for 2016 when he's off contract, that's too far ahead when they need one now.

The spirit of the clause is in the wording otherwise they'd all be like Ricky's where he could leave at anytime for any reason.

 

[Socnorb]

I'm guessing the Dogs aren't willing to sign him for 2016 when he's off contract, that's too far ahead when they need one now.

The spirit of the clause is in the wording otherwise they'd all be like Ricky's where he could leave at anytime for any reason.

Yes . But the kid obviously feels duded by a cruel club and duplicitous manager. Stuart's clause goes along way to indicate the character if the man, and you'd also have us believe the raiders had nothing to do with luring Stuart over before sacking furner. Regardless of all the bleating of the raiders fans about the big bad Broncos , As things stand, it is your club that has acted in a dishonourable manner.

 

[Manbush]

Yes . But the kid obviously feels duded by a cruel club and duplicitous manager. Stuart's clause goes along way to indicate the character if the man, and you'd also have us believe the raiders had nothing to do with luring Stuart over before sacking furner. Regardless of all the bleating of the raiders fans about the big bad Broncos , As things stand, it is your club that has acted in a dishonourable manner.

The kid is feeling dudded cause the immature lil brat didnt get what he wanted, nothing unusual for kids with huge egos. The Stuart clause I'd say goes a long way to indicate the mess that Parra is behind the scenes. I wasn't impressed with the Raiders going after Ricky despite both he and the club denying it, some of us aren't that blinded that we can't see through obvious BS from our club.

 

[broncos4life]

The kid is feeling dudded cause the immature lil brat didnt get what he wanted, nothing unusual for kids with huge egos. The Stuart clause I'd say goes a long way to indicate the mess that Parra is behind the scenes. I wasn't impressed with the Raiders going after Ricky despite both he and the club denying it, some of us aren't that blinded that we can't see through obvious BS from our club.

Mate he had clause put in there, obviously the conditions haven't been met in a legal sense, as in it may be worded in a way that means his dad has to medically have gotten worse etc. but the reason he had it put in the is obvious, and the raiders have basically legally strong armed a teenager that wants to be with his sick father... Congratulations I guess

 

[broncos4life]

You keep bringing up the Hoffman situation but the average user on here doesn't want him and thinks the club should let him leave, so it really does hold much weight to your argument

 

[Manbush]

You keep bringing up the Hoffman situation but the average user on here doesn't want him and thinks the club should let him leave, so it really does hold much weight to your argument

Hadn't spotted that but we're talking clubs actions not the fans, there are also many Raiders fans who want Milf gone. If we're talking fans a lot of Raiders fans didn't like the way Ricky was signed while under contract despite having a clause.

 

[Porthoz]

I've been saying he needs a new manager for ages, Ayoubs the bottom feeder of the industry.

Your second paragraph though could be equally applied to the Broncos with Hoffman situation couldn't it even more so with Hodges media stunt and Hoffs dad responding.

Such a short sighted move by the Broncos. Look at the bigger issues dudes.

Both clubs are just looking after number 1 and doing what they think gives them the best chance to win games in 2014

Are you really comparing a guy who is butt hurt about not getting the fullback position at the club, and was told by a senior player that he needs to get better to compete for said position, with a kid that wants to go home because he has a seriously ill father (regardless of being on the mend or not), is homesick and had a get out clause for those exact reasons, albeit possibly poorly worded?

The only difference between Milford and Sticky is the wording of the clauses, with the Canberra management taking advantage of an unscrupulous **** like Sticky, while screwing a 19 y/old over with a clause they knew would be worthless when they put it in front of a 17 y/old kid, because if Milford's dad did get worse, no clause would be needed anyway if Milford wanted to go home, unless the Raiders wanted to ensure no kid would ever sign with them again!

Fair dinkum, take the blinkers off mate!

 

[Foordy]

[MENTION=8374]Bushman[/MENTION] why would the Broncos Release a player they wanted to keep, when that Player HAS NOT asked for a release!!!

 

[Big Pete]

Didn't Hoffman's manager request a release back in October?

Technically not Josh himself but still.