broncos4life
International Captain
- Oct 5, 2011
- 26,663
- 27,317
Mate I wrote that prior to Big Pete's orders to stop.
And I am calm, I just don't enjoy trolls on the site, but that's cool.
[Official] - Milford signs with Broncos
- Thread starter ningnangnong
- Start date
Mate I wrote that prior to Big Pete's orders to stop.
And I am calm, I just don't enjoy trolls on the site, but that's cool.
Haven't been following the whole Milford saga since we signed him. All I've seen is he's playing good footy, which most importantly, is good for the game.
If he ends up not coming and staying at Canberra because he decides that's best for him, good for him.
If he honours his agreement with the Broncos and registers after round 13, good for him.
If he comes to Brisbane I want it to be because he wants to. Not because he signed a deal late last year when he was angry and is stuck with that decision even though he's had a change of heart. We bagged the Bulldogs and Canberra for trying to "bully" an unhappy player into honouring a contract - it'd be ludicrous to support Gee's assertion that he should be "forced" to honour his agreement to come to Brisbane.
There's no easy answer to solve these kinds of issues. Players need time to decide their futures, and players will change their minds if there's too much time. We can't force all transfers to happen in the offseason, and we can't allow it to be open slather either. Just gotta suck it up.
If he ends up not coming and staying at Canberra because he decides that's best for him, good for him.
If he honours his agreement with the Broncos and registers after round 13, good for him.
If he comes to Brisbane I want it to be because he wants to. Not because he signed a deal late last year when he was angry and is stuck with that decision even though he's had a change of heart. We bagged the Bulldogs and Canberra for trying to "bully" an unhappy player into honouring a contract - it'd be ludicrous to support Gee's assertion that he should be "forced" to honour his agreement to come to Brisbane.
There's no easy answer to solve these kinds of issues. Players need time to decide their futures, and players will change their minds if there's too much time. We can't force all transfers to happen in the offseason, and we can't allow it to be open slather either. Just gotta suck it up.
- Oct 28, 2013
- 12,489
- 13,204
+1
nopatience101
NRL Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 3,470
- 6,333
I don't think its sending the right message to these kids that they can sign something and then ignore it at their convenience. As a general point, if your not completely comfortable with a deal and willing to honor the commitment then you shouldn't be signing it. The game makes things more complicated than they need to be. For the record, I am confident Milford will honor his commitment but I can see the hypocrisy of a club expecting him to honor their deals but not others, that can be applied to both the Broncos and the Raiders.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 35,035
- 41,884
I have seen this idea posted (possibly in this thread) and i personally think it is a great idea and it gets rid of the round 13 rule, while still giving the players incumbent club a chance to retain its player.
Since most contract have a form of a cooling off period, then it is fair for NRL contracts to also have a cooling off period. so what should happen is that after a player signs with an opposing club, he has 4 weeks to reneg (or back flip) and remain with his current club. this is would happen even if a contract is signed after round 13. in this instance a club still has a chance to change the players mind and the speculation would only last 4 weeks as opposed to potentially 6-8 months.
this idea would also keep the spirit of what the round 13 rules is trying to acheive.
if after 4 weeks the player hasn't changed his mind and reneged on the agreement to go to the opposing club, the NRL then registers the contract and speculation ceases.
IMO thats win/win
Since most contract have a form of a cooling off period, then it is fair for NRL contracts to also have a cooling off period. so what should happen is that after a player signs with an opposing club, he has 4 weeks to reneg (or back flip) and remain with his current club. this is would happen even if a contract is signed after round 13. in this instance a club still has a chance to change the players mind and the speculation would only last 4 weeks as opposed to potentially 6-8 months.
this idea would also keep the spirit of what the round 13 rules is trying to acheive.
if after 4 weeks the player hasn't changed his mind and reneged on the agreement to go to the opposing club, the NRL then registers the contract and speculation ceases.
IMO thats win/win
Splinter
NRL Player
- Feb 16, 2013
- 2,818
- 989
This is exactly right
In life if i am unsure about something then the answer will never be yes and in most cases no straight away so people are not left in limbo. Unfortunately most people i see or deal with will always keep someone dangling with a non committed yes and then let them down at the last minute. They respect you more if you tell them you are unsure and give them no i cannot commit straight up
In no other employment do you sign a multi-year deal without option to terminate the agreement and move jobs as agreed. I think it's ludicrous we have multi-year contracts in an age where moving cities or even countries is not nearly as big a deal as it was even 20 years ago.
I understand clubs need the ability to plan their roster long term, and players like the security of knowing they've got a spot for 3/4/5 years. But reality is relationships can and do sour between club and player, and so contracts get chopped early.
What's my point? Well really that the message that it sends kids they don't need to honour contracts is garbage. The contract was signed with both parties knowing that by round 13 it could be walked out on. All contracts are signed knowing that if a player is unhappy, or club feels they're underperforming or misbehaving, they can be terminated.
Frankly I think there's too much butt hurt at the suggestion of players or clubs cancelling an agreement early. It's life.
I understand clubs need the ability to plan their roster long term, and players like the security of knowing they've got a spot for 3/4/5 years. But reality is relationships can and do sour between club and player, and so contracts get chopped early.
What's my point? Well really that the message that it sends kids they don't need to honour contracts is garbage. The contract was signed with both parties knowing that by round 13 it could be walked out on. All contracts are signed knowing that if a player is unhappy, or club feels they're underperforming or misbehaving, they can be terminated.
Frankly I think there's too much butt hurt at the suggestion of players or clubs cancelling an agreement early. It's life.
Why? He signed his deal. He's said nothing since. All we've heard is speculation from others.
We should just assume he's coming. There's been nothing to suggest otherwise.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,225
- 26,005
broncos4life, I agree that the Round 13 clause is an unneccesary standardised period of time to offer all three parties a cooling off period. A month sounds like a fair time frame.
What do you guys make of the current arrangement where clubs can sign players a year ahead of time at the start of pre-season? For mine, that's apart of the problem with this current signing, in that it happened this far out and basically resigned Canberra to the fact that their season was virtually doomed to fail and I'm sure it has to impact the fans to a point. I mean, what satisfaction do they get out of watching Milford run round in their #1 when they know by November he'll likely be training at Red Hill?
I know they experimented with a transfer window in the past and it had it's problems but surely that needs to be addressed and a compromise needs to be identified so clubs aren't handed a death sentence before the season is even underway.
cult - Milford nipped the rumour in the bud after the Warriors trial when they first surfaced...he can't be expected to come out everytime a journo writes an article based purely on hearsay and speculation, that would be a waste of his time and he may anger the wrong people.
What do you guys make of the current arrangement where clubs can sign players a year ahead of time at the start of pre-season? For mine, that's apart of the problem with this current signing, in that it happened this far out and basically resigned Canberra to the fact that their season was virtually doomed to fail and I'm sure it has to impact the fans to a point. I mean, what satisfaction do they get out of watching Milford run round in their #1 when they know by November he'll likely be training at Red Hill?
I know they experimented with a transfer window in the past and it had it's problems but surely that needs to be addressed and a compromise needs to be identified so clubs aren't handed a death sentence before the season is even underway.
cult - Milford nipped the rumour in the bud after the Warriors trial when they first surfaced...he can't be expected to come out everytime a journo writes an article based purely on hearsay and speculation, that would be a waste of his time and he may anger the wrong people.
Last edited:
- Oct 17, 2013
- 12,841
- 14,848
Because it's a new story every day. No doubt he's seeing them and knows how the fans will think. Also his current and future employers even seem confused with the situation. If he waits 9 more weeks to tell Canberra he is leaving could you imagine the uproar from their fans, wanting him to do his ACL and telling him so all over social media. He'd get a lesser reaction if he came out now and said he's definitely leaving. We should assume he's coming, and because of his reasons for signing the contract with the Broncos I do expect him to come.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 35,035
- 41,884
he did come out a few weeks ago and said he would be honouring his contract ... do we need him to release a statement everyday until round 13. it still wont stop the media from spinning stories
- Oct 17, 2013
- 12,841
- 14,848
Yes that is exactly what we need. These guys are on social media for a reason. I'm kidding, I didn't see the statement.
Big Pete
International Captain
- Mar 12, 2008
- 32,225
- 26,005
"I've signed with the Broncos," he said.
"I haven't read the latest reports and I don't know who is putting out that stuff (that he will renege on his Broncos deal) ... but nothing has changed for me.
"I don't want any issues with the Raiders. I will give 100 per cent for them this year and do my best.
No Cookies | The Courier-Mail
Dated Feb 26 2014.
"I haven't read the latest reports and I don't know who is putting out that stuff (that he will renege on his Broncos deal) ... but nothing has changed for me.
"I don't want any issues with the Raiders. I will give 100 per cent for them this year and do my best.
No Cookies | The Courier-Mail
Dated Feb 26 2014.
Splinter
NRL Player
- Feb 16, 2013
- 2,818
- 989
I will be very surprised if he reneges. Even though the contract can be torn up before round 13 he had the round 13 clause removed before he signed the contract which says to me he is coming no matter what. His manager confirmed the clause was struck out also
There is no such clause in existence mate, its a blanket rule covering EVERY player :laugh:
