Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Light Theme
View sidebar
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Rugby League
Brisbane Broncos Talk
'Abysmal, unacceptable': Legends unload on Broncos
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="BroncsFan, post: 3018896, member: 9052"] I don't really have an issue and I don't really see why the NRL should want to close the "loophole". To me from a high level it should play out something like: - GI signs a contract for x dollars - GI is unable to fulfill contract and decides to retire. In this sense the existing contract would be mutually terminated and therefore GI forfeits the x dollars. Similar to mutual agreement when a player moves due to home sickness. - GI then signs a new contract for y dollars... To me Souths should have to wear the value of y in their salary cap until the length of the previous contract expires, as GI is still being paid by the club. In this sense a player can retire whenever they want but they have to forfeit the value of that contract. If they then sign a new contract with that same club then the new value should be included in the club's salary cap. This would stop a player from retiring just to be rehired on a contract of the same value, but exempt from the cap, basically the Robbie Farah. My understanding of the Watmough situation is parra were trying to medically retire him which would entitle Watmough to get paid out the remaining value on his contract and parra wouldn't have to wear it in the cap. But the injuries were preexisting so no dice. If Boyd were to retire and get hired back by Brisbane then Brisbane just wear the cost of that new contract, but it would be much lower than previous playing contract, which then makes it a player's choice. Boyd could also retire and go and do something completely different, in that sense any income from that venture shouldn't come off the club's cap. Unless it was a sponsor or affiliated with the club ie an illegal TPA. Would be like a league's club hiring Boyd to pull beers at $300k a year. Players shouldn't be forced to keep playing just to see out the contract and not impact on their current team... but they shouldn't have to then walk away from the game completely. How many times do players retire and then come on as assistants, etc. to the club. The game is what they know and they should be able to gain employment through it after they retire. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Log in
Your name or email address
Password
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Log in
Don't have an account?
Register now
Active Now
No members online now.
Forums
Rugby League
Brisbane Broncos Talk
'Abysmal, unacceptable': Legends unload on Broncos
Top