[Official] - Milford signs with Broncos

[kingpest]

And that's the end of that chapter.....

 

[Porthoz]

Can we leave the fantasy world and wishful thinking of the GH, and concentrate on the problems we have at the Broncos...?

 

[jarro65]

Ricky Stuart upfront and honest ....

... yeah right :rolleyes:

 

[bb_gun]

Hopefully now we'll never see [MENTION=8374]Bushman[/MENTION] aka Manbush again ;) , or then again perhaps we will....

 

[Manbush]

:laugh:

I could always post in the trial thread etc if you like mate

 

[Porthoz]

At least this was put to bed pretty quick, unlike the eternity it took to confirm he was leaving the Raiders for the Broncos...

 

[bb_gun]

:laugh:

I could always post in the trial thread etc if you like mate

Nice one :takdir:

I've already cried about the trial to the point where my body can no longer produce tears so go right ahead, I am now immune to it.

 

[Socnorb]

How dare he come out and quash those rumours. What will news limited speculate on now. They'll have to think up something else.
Barba back to belmore?

 

[Unbreakable]

Lock thread pls

 

[broncos4life]

Ok so we probably can lock this thread now. They are even talking about the non clause in the daily telecrap. In other news I now think 1910 is eith James hooper or josh massaud

 

[Manbush]

Probably cause its not a clause it's a rule that applies to all players hence why the clause doesn't appear, it can't if one doesn't exist:laugh:

right though may as well lock cause it ain't gonna happen anyway

 

[Sproj]

Probably cause its not a clause it's a rule that applies to all players hence why the clause doesn't appear, it can't if one doesn't exist:laugh:

right though may as well lock cause it ain't gonna happen anyway

I'm a simpleton, could you explain that again as I really didn't understand it. :confused:

 

[kingpest]

Probably cause its not a clause it's a rule that applies to all players hence why the clause doesn't appear, it can't if one doesn't exist:laugh:

right though may as well lock cause it ain't gonna happen anyway

So are you saying that IF milf wanted to reneg on his deal with us and sign a contract extension with the Raiders then legally he would be allowed to do so?

 

[broncos4life]

So are you saying that IF milf wanted to reneg on his deal with us and sign a contract extension with the Raiders then legally he would be allowed to do so?

That's what he believes, yes.

 

[Porthoz]

The NRL Salary cap auditor will not register a contract for the next season before completion of round 13 of the current one. That is the NRL rule people are talking about.

This essentially means that the incumbent club can make a last ditch offer to a player to keep him until that time.

The question is whether the new playing contract can contain special clauses that would prevent a player from changing his mind and specifically nullifies the above. From all sources I know, if such a clause is inserted into a contract, it becomes legally binding, which might be the case here, but there is no legal precedent to confirm or deny this assumption.

Regardless, the question is whether a club would want to get into a legal battle for a player that has decided to remain where he is. It would be good if it happened though, as it would probably force the NRL to clean-up their act one way or another, and prevent all this speculation.

The big difference between Milford and players which have reneged on their deals, is that they didn't sign for a different club while holding a good offer from their incumbent club. This is not the case with Milford, who by all accounts had a better offer from Canberra than Brisbane, and still committed to the Broncos.

Is a backflip still possible? Probably.
Will it happen? Not likely.

 

[Super Freak]

Hi,

Thanks for your email.

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.

It is a Rule that is applied by the Salary Cap Auditor when determining whether to register a contract.

If the incumbent Club give written permission, then the contract can be registered by the Salary Cap Auditor prior to Round 13.

I hope this assists with your query. Thanks for your support of the game.

Kind regards
Rachel
Supporter Liaison

 

[Sproj]

So no clause means jack all.

 

[broncos4life]

Hi,

Thanks for your email.

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.

It is a Rule that is applied by the Salary Cap Auditor when determining whether to register a contract.

If the incumbent Club give written permission, then the contract can be registered by the Salary Cap Auditor prior to Round 13.

I hope this assists with your query. Thanks for your support of the game.

Kind regards
Rachel
Supporter Liaison

Maybe the raiders gave permission then. Maybe that was the deal and why this all went quite and he agreed to stay in canberra for 2014. Maybe they said we'll allow the contract to be registered straight away if you call off the dogs and agree to play out the remainder of your current contract with us