Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="broncos4life, post: 2627955, member: 7802"] I thought that was in the case that the club wanted to offload the player. As in if Newcastle wanted to get rid of Boyd but couldnt find someone to take his full wage, they would have to pay him the remaining amount (to make sure that the player is not out of pocket). Where as if Boyd wants to leave and is requesting that his contract be terminated, why would that have any bearing on what he signs elsewhere? he requested it. My understanding was this rule was there to protect players when clubs try to move them on. I'm not saying I'm right or your wrong, just that it makes no sense. Which means it is probably right because pretty much everything the NRL does makes no sense [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)