[Official] - Milford signs with Broncos

[Super Freak]

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.

Then Broncos will be like...

 

[Morkel]

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.

This all sounds spot on, and it's what I would have argued, except for the fact that, if I can put 2 and 2 together, the contract itself is not legally binding until the NRL registers it. As has been said above, that makes it virtually toilet paper. Yes, both parties have signed it, but it would be written somewhere that it's still not binding until the NRL registers it. The counter-argument would be of course that if its written on it, then surely you can add a clause that excludes it. The counter-counter argument may be that the NRL will refuse to register any contract that has any amendments or exclusions to these clauses that were added due to the latest CBA. It's a whole bunch of legal crap that unless one of us can secure a copy of a genuine contract, is all speculation.

Just as someone who belongs to a union-controlled industry, the employer and employee can both sign any contract they want, but due to the legal legislation in the industry, it too is useless if it does not adhere to the proper conditions that their industry must comply with.

 

[Bucking Beads]

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

I never thought that for a second. The club can't do anymore. Milford either wants to move to Brisbane or he doesn't

 

[nopatience101]

Hes not going to renege, move on.

 

[Rhys van Beurden]

The way I see it, the only official word on this is from Milford's manager stating there was no way out of the contract, and Milford himself stating he had every intent on honoring the deal. Everything is just media trash being blown out of proportion.

 

[Foordy]

The biggest problem with the NRL's round 13 rule is not so much the speculation and endless media BS it leads to, but rather the fact that a club has to keep money free for the player they have signed, and if that player then renegs on the deal, the club may have missed out on other available players they could have signed if they had the money free (instead of being tied up with a player who has reneged on the contract. therefore they may have the money free again but have missed the boat on other suitable players)

 

[subsbligh]

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.

This is everything you need to know.

 

[nopatience101]

The biggest problem with the NRL's round 13 rule is not so much the speculation and endless media BS it leads to, but rather the fact that a club has to keep money free for the player they have signed, and if that player then renegs on the deal, the club may have missed out on other available players they could have signed if they had the money free (instead of being tied up with a player who has reneged on the contract. therefore they may have the money free again but have missed the boat on other suitable players)

Not only that, clubs aren't given the same opportunity to cancel a contract with a player because a better player becomes available, that's not a reciprocal contract, it shouldn't bind only one party.

 

[Foordy]

Not only that, clubs aren't given the same opportunity to cancel a contract with a player because a better player becomes available, that's not a reciprocal contract, it shouldn't bind only one party.

I never thought of that ... that is a really good point.

but the NRL would never allow a situation where a club has until round 13 to backflip on a contract they have with a player

 

[Old Mate]

Not only that, clubs aren't given the same opportunity to cancel a contract with a player because a better player becomes available, that's not a reciprocal contract, it shouldn't bind only one party.

Pretty sure clubs can cancel contracts like that, Raiders did it to Dayne Weston didn't they?

 

[Old Mate]

Not quite but still fucked, dodgey *****.

Raiders hit with another contract saga | smh.com.au

 

[Porthoz]

Gotta love the "negotiations process is legally sound" line...

 

[Old Mate]

This is everything you need to know.

It's not, the Broncos can't enforce shit. Contracts simply aren't registered until round 13, plenty of clubs have had players backflip on them and there's been nothing they can do about it.

 

[Foordy]

It's not, the Broncos can't enforce shit. Contracts simply aren't registered until round 13, plenty of clubs have had players backflip on them and there's been nothing they can do about it.

thats because none of those clubs have challenged the round 13 rule in court ... if they have a legal contract signed by a player, the courts could side with a club.

i think the reason it hasn't been challenged yet, is because clubs generally don't want players who don't want to be there

 

[rod78]

This is what happened. Last year when Milford wanted to use his get out clause which he had, an agreement between Milford and Canberra was made in regards to yes there is a get out clause but we want you to stay and dont want a legal battle or you to sit out the year. Better situation for everybody involved. So Canberra regretfully released Milford for 2014. He then signed with the broncos first for 2015. Canberra deal was as long as he re signed a new contract for 2014 on more $ to what you are on.

By releasing him first broncos can sign him with out the clause as he is not registered (which is what has been said by the Ayoub) and what ricky means by our end of the bargain

This was all done by Canberra to save face due to all the player issues of the past year

this is why the broncos media release (2015) was first and the raiders the next day(2014)
the days the contracts were sent to the nrl

 

[Jason Simmons]

It's not, the Broncos can't enforce ****. Contracts simply aren't registered until round 13, plenty of clubs have had players backflip on them and there's been nothing they can do about it.

Or they didn't actually have a contract in place just "agreement" ala Inglis and the Broncos or the clubs chose not to enforce their contractual rights, or...

There could be any number of explanations for these issues and there could also be pre-existing contractual arrangements in place that ALL NRL clubs and ALL registered NRL players agree to give the NRL final say over whether their contracts are legitimate.

You'd have to see the contract to know whether NRL is actually a party to these contracts or merely involved through registering the club or player.

If the NRL had contractual rights over clubs and players I very much doubt we'd have seen a superstar of the game be allowed to sit out a season (Tallis) or that any player would ever have broken contract and left the game ala SBW in 2008.

I can see why a club might not want to take a player to court but the NRL not being so closely aligned shouldn't matter. I can see that it would be to the NRL's benefit to have a player involved in the game and if they had contractual rights to enforce that contract, they likely would do it. But they haven't...

Personally I believe (not having yet seen to the contrary) that these contracts will only be between club and player. NRL's only involvement is registering said contract (and ergo the player in the competition) as a method by which the player is allowed (or licenced if you will) to play within the NRL. It seems more likely to me that the legitimacy or otherwise of the contract, as with all contracts in society is the prerogative of the courts, not the NRL or any other employer...

 

[Socnorb]

It all depends on the the contract that has been signed. You can have a contract that says whatever you want, regardless of being registered withe NRL.

 

[broncos4life]

This is what happened. Last year when Milford wanted to use his get out clause which he had, an agreement between Milford and Canberra was made in regards to yes there is a get out clause but we want you to stay and dont want a legal battle or you to sit out the year. Better situation for everybody involved. So Canberra regretfully released Milford for 2014. He then signed with the broncos first for 2015. Canberra deal was as long as he re signed a new contract for 2014 on more $ to what you are on.

By releasing him first broncos can sign him with out the clause as he is not registered (which is what has been said by the Ayoub) and what ricky means by our end of the bargain

This was all done by Canberra to save face due to all the player issues of the past year

this is why the broncos media release (2015) was first and the raiders the next day(2014)
the days the contracts were sent to the nrl

Is that what you think has happened or do you have inside info mate?

So if they released him why did he have to stay this year?