[Official] - Milford signs with Broncos

[rnabokov]

@rnabokov From what i have read he has actually signed a contract to play with us in 2015, but NRL regulations (or rules) say that the contract won't be registered with them until round 13 this year (unless the Raiders give their permission).

so far this hasn't been tested in courts by clubs who have suffered from a back flip (i.e Papalli and the Eels last year), but if it was tested in court the round 13 rule would be thrown out since the 2 parties have signed a legally binding contract (at least according to a lawyer i know)

however, i don't really expect it to be tested in court as most clubs don't want players playing for them that don't want to be there

Thanks for that Foordy.

My point however still remains. Until the contract is registered with the NRL - obviously an "express term" of the contract (such as it is), it is really no contract at all in the legal sense of the term "contract".

Accordingly, until it is registered with the NRL, Milford playing with us in 2015 is pure speculation and wishful tihnking.

 

[broncos4life]

[MENTION=1847]rnabokov[/MENTION] From what i have read he has actually signed a contract to play with us in 2015, but NRL regulations (or rules) say that the contract won't be registered with them until round 13 this year (unless the Raiders give their permission).

so far this hasn't been tested in courts by clubs who have suffered from a back flip (i.e Papalli and the Eels last year), but if it was tested in court the round 13 rule would be thrown out since the 2 parties have signed a legally binding contract (at least according to a lawyer i know)

however, i don't really expect it to be tested in court as most clubs don't want players playing for them that don't want to be there

If he backflips I hope we don't take it to court because I don't want players at the club that don't want to be here. However, I hope a club does do it one day because it's a ridiculous situation and the nrl deserves to be embarassed about it. The nrl is the most reactive administration in professional sport so it's probably the only way the would change the situation

 

[Charmamba]

Better yet don't allow contracts to be signed so far out, it's a blight on the game.

Agree, follow some other sports and have the offseason be about where they pay next year.

As soon as your season ends, you may start talking to other clubs. Until it ends no contract talks.

 

[Unbreakable]

I don't think there's a realistic chance that Milford will stay in Canberra, they may be offering more money on the surface, but in reality he'll be getting boat loads of 3rd party and under the table deals in Brisbane.

Not to mention we're performing better at the moment than the Raiders, the only reason the Raiders are winning games at the moment is Milford's brilliance.

 

[Socnorb]

Better yet don't allow contracts to be signed so far out, it's a blight on the game.

Could'nt agree more. of course any current signings would have to be registered.

 

[Manbush]

@rnabokov From what i have read he has actually signed a contract to play with us in 2015, but NRL regulations (or rules) say that the contract won't be registered with them until round 13 this year (unless the Raiders give their permission).

so far this hasn't been tested in courts by clubs who have suffered from a back flip (i.e Papalli and the Eels last year), but if it was tested in court the round 13 rule would be thrown out since the 2 parties have signed a legally binding contract (at least according to a lawyer i know)

however, i don't really expect it to be tested in court as most clubs don't want players playing for them that don't want to be there

I wouldn't be so sure of it being thrown out since both parties signed the contract fully aware of the round 13 rule, they knew the contract wasnt legally binding when signed

 

[Manbush]

Agree, follow some other sports and have the offseason be about where they pay next year.

As soon as your season ends, you may start talking to other clubs. Until it ends no contract talks.

Yep that's how it should be but the players association complained there wasn't enough time to plan and move, NRL players must be the only people in the world who can't move in that time frame.

 

[Porthoz]

I wouldn't be so sure of it being thrown out since both parties signed the contract fully aware of the round 13 rule, they knew the contract wasnt legally binding when signed

That's bullshit. They may have known the NRL wouldn't register it, but it's a far cry from saying it's not legally binding.
In fact, I'd love for it to be tested in court!

Last known fact is that Milford said he would honour his contract signed with the Broncos.

The rest is folklore driven by media, undoubtedly fed by crumbs left by Sticky and/or Furner to up the psychological pressure on Milford, and possibly Ayoub trying to get more money from the Broncos deal.

Need I remind everyone of the very similar articles (about million dollar offers) coming out of Canberra before Milford signed with us?

 

[subsbligh]

I don't understand why you have quoted me?

The implication (whether intended or not) that the club should do something more to protect its fans in the event Milford reneges.

 

[Manbush]

That's bullshit. They may have known the NRL wouldn't register it, but it's a far cry from saying it's not legally binding.
In fact, I'd love for it to be tested in court!

Last known fact is that Milford said he would honour his contract signed with the Broncos.

The rest is folklore driven by media, undoubtedly fed by crumbs left by Sticky and/or Furner to up the psychological pressure on Milford, and possibly Ayoub trying to get more money from the Broncos deal.

Need I remind everyone of the very similar articles (about million dollar offers) coming out of Canberra before Milford signed with us?

Since both parties were aware the courts could consider it the contracts "cooling off" period which contracts generally have.

As for laying blame about the rumours they started appearing in the courier mail, your propaganda paper. I'd be laying the blame at Ayoubs feet as te round 13 rule is a great negotiating tool for him to use to up both his and his clients pay. It'd be in Canberras best interest to keep their efforts on the sly.

 

[coreyh88]

Except numerous parties have stated the round thirteen clause has explicitly been removed. So there is no cooling off period.

 

[subsbligh]

That's bull****. They may have known the NRL wouldn't register it, but it's a far cry from saying it's not legally binding.
In fact, I'd love for it to be tested in court!

Last known fact is that Milford said he would honour his contract signed with the Broncos.

The rest is folklore driven by media, undoubtedly fed by crumbs left by Sticky and/or Furner to up the psychological pressure on Milford, and possibly Ayoub trying to get more money from the Broncos deal.

Need I remind everyone of the very similar articles (about million dollar offers) coming out of Canberra before Milford signed with us?

The Broncos have the leverage (which the Raiders used against Milford to get him to stay in Canberra for 2014, btw).

There's a contract, if Milford pulls out, the precedent (Tallis, Super League, blah) is that the Broncos could force Milford to sit on the sidelines in 2015 by refusing to give consent to the NRL registering his contract.

The NRL would need to change it's registration rules to register a Raiders contract for Milford in 2015.

 

[Porthoz]

Since both parties were aware the courts could consider it the contracts "cooling off" period which contracts generally have.

As for laying blame about the rumours they started appearing in the courier mail, your propaganda paper. I'd be laying the blame at Ayoubs feet as te round 13 rule is a great negotiating tool for him to use to up both his and his clients pay. It'd be in Canberras best interest to keep their efforts on the sly.

No, as you repeatedly said, this is not a "cooling off" period clause in the contract, but a NRL rule.
Besides where would the cooling off period be for contracts signed after round 13? Can't have the cake and eat it too...

As to the blame, I have no doubt Ayoub will have a hand in it somewhere, but I have even less doubt that Sticky and Furner are feeding the frenzy, especially the less than subtle articles from Tux.

The Broncos are the only party with no interest in this rehashing of the same thing every second day, yet the Couriermail, which according to you and your Canberra acolytes, is the Broncos propaganda medium, is the guilty party... contradiction much?

 

[subsbligh]

Since both parties were aware the courts could consider it the contracts "cooling off" period which contracts generally have.

No they don't. Standard form contracts for real property and motor vehicles do, along with some consumer credit contracts.

 

[teampjta]

Gyday boys just joined, looking forward to popping the cherry on the MILF thread,

Just out of curiosity, lets say the raiders table MILF a 1 mil offer, how close do you think wed be willing to go and what are the limitations on 3rd party deals?

 

[broncsgoat]

I dont think we'll budge at all

 

[Jason Simmons]

I wouldn't be so sure of it being thrown out since both parties signed the contract fully aware of the round 13 rule, they knew the contract wasnt legally binding when signed

I very much doubt the NRL rule has any impact on the enforceability of this contract whatsoever, assuming it's actually signed and not just a handshake agreement.

What the NRL could do is exercise it's right to refuse to register the contract but the only thing that would result in if each party refuses to concede, is that young Milford would be ineligible to play NRL next season until the contract situation impasse was resolved. If the NRL simply refuse to register a lawful contract because of Canberra complaining, they are going to find themselves potentially liable both to Milford and likely the Broncos.

Milford signing any other contract until the previously signed Broncos contract (assuming it does exist) is mutually terminated would more than likely be deemed to be a breach of contract and NRL has no say in that whatsoever. The NRL is a business, not a tribunal of fact of any kind and it has no legal authority whatsoever to deny or refuse contracts between clubs or players. It does have the legal right to refuse to register the contract, but that is a separate matter to the lawfulness or otherwise of the contract.

If the Broncos have a signed contract for 2015 with Milford and unless they agree to mutually end it, they are well within their rights to enforce the terms of said contract. Whether they would see a benefit in enforcing their contractual rights (ie: forcing him to play or sit out the season, as Canberra has done this year) if Milford signs elsewhere is again a different topic.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Gyday boys just joined, looking forward to popping the cherry on the MILF thread,

Just out of curiosity, lets say the raiders table MILF a 1 mil offer, how close do you think wed be willing to go and what are the limitations on 3rd party deals?

If the Raiders offer him 1M+ they won't have money to go after Glenn Stewart. Glenn stays at Manly which means Brett stays as well. Which means the Sea Eagles salary cap pressure remains. Which means...(see where I'm going here).

If I have only one criticism of our recruitment it's that we're nowhere near elaborate enough in our scheming. I want us to be the Littlefinger/Cartman/everyone from Wild Things of the NRL. If the Raiders up the ante, I say we make them eat their parents.