Anthony Milford - wants release says players agent

[Raider_69]

This pretty much sums up what I was saying. Lose one keep a heap. Pretty bloody good outcome in the scheme of things.

Yep. You dont throw the baby out with the bath water
We'd rather have and lose Milford, whilst keeping all those guys, than to have never had a shot with any of them

 

[Raider_69]

Might be a case of its there as a rule so doesn't have to be written in but can be written out.

if it is indeed that easy, and it could very well be that easy... it makes you wonder just how damn incompetent the Parramatta Eels are.

 

[Kiwi]

if it is indeed that easy, and it could very well be that easy... it makes you wonder just how damn incompetent the Parramatta Eels are.

From what we have seen from them over the last few years I'm surprised any of them made it out of thd womb in one piece

 

[Kiwi]

I'm leaving work early tomorrow, I think the family budgie is at death's door

Just wait till after the lunchtime rush and the kebab shop manager might let you leave early.

 

[Kiwi]

Find it humorous on the raiders form that there are calls for him to be dumped to reserve grade and forced to play prop

 

[Walt Flanigan]

First nd it humorous on the raiders form that there are calls for him to be dumped to reserve grade and forced to play prop

Uh huh.....

 

[Raider_69]

Find it humorous on the raiders form that there are calls for him to be dumped to reserve grade and forced to play prop

What at this stage would be the point in the raiders building around a spine player in 2014, who will not be here in 2015?

I absolutely think he should be playing reggies.
Send him the SL, he can be close to family there... we are not going to win the comp next year, so there is nothing my club can gain out of playing him, other than maybe making the 8 before being bundled out

We're far better off using the spine spots to develop combinations for players who are going to be around to hopefully push for a premiership in the next 3-4 years.

If Stuart plays Milford at #14 as a bench utility, so be it. Im cool with that, but given we are not a premiership contender in 2014, we are best blooding Cornish, Ahearn and Wighton in the 1-6-7 spots and seeing what we have with them, instead of wasting a year of development on Milford

And that's not to say we should release him early either. Cause im vindictive that way
No one apologies for picking up our scraps like Carney-Dugan-Fergo, not many are that concerned this kids been ripped from us at the time he could bring us back to relevency.
So i dont see any reason to do any other club favours here. Nor the kid btw, he made his bed too and good luck to him, but im not going to feel for a 19 year old kid about to earn millions to play football because he cant say no to mummy or daddy.

 

[shiznit]

They could... but again, to what end?

And when that question gets asked, is when the Lawyers stop getting paid, because as i said:

A. all participants are aware of this situation, they know going in that the NRL as the governing body will not register a contract until a certain date. Very good chance the courts would want absolutely no part in this and simply dismiss it saying the parties entered into the negotation with the understanding that this was the case, there for they assumed the risk of it happening.

The player would be insane to use that argument...

They won't throw it out of court... Quite the opposite... They would more than likely find in favour of the club very quickly if they used that.

pacta sunt servanda - the basis of a contract...

In your argument the player is basically admitting that they signed a contract in bad faith.

In order to successfully use that argument they would need to prove that both parties went in to the agreement with the intention of breaking it.

And you know for damn sure that isn't the case because the club signed him with the intention to play for them.

b. even if they win... then what? some cash but no player? Player is forced to see out his deal at a club he doesnt want to be at?
It is not as if this is a secret rule that the parties are unaware about. They are aware and negotiate deals knowing full well that the deal isnt ratified by the governing sporting body until date X.

If they were to win... The main positive would be that they enforce the contract agreed to by both parties...

If that means he's forced to see out a deal at a club he doesn't want to be at... Well that's probably a life lesson for the player about signing contracts.

And as far as I'm aware... the so called 'rule' is from the NRL and relates to the registration of the player in the competition.

But whether the NRL register the player to play in the NRL or not... If written correctly the contract is binding from the moment it's signed.

So the club could potentially teach the player a lesson and just make him sit out the duration of the contract without them being able to play in the NRL.

Hard to imagine a club wasting valuable time, money and resources challenging it in court when the outcomes are not desirable even if they win.

They could challenge it in court. As the Eels could have with Papalii, the Raiders with Nathan Smith (teehee) and Souths with Luke Lewis... but none of them did... why? Because it's ultimately a pointless exercise with a real risk of losing anyway.

I think each situation is different. I think in the Papalii situation Parra may have left the door open with they're contract... As a Parra fan god knows they have had some real clowns writing contracts over the past few years.

But I see where your coming from... I think there comes a point where as a club you have to weigh up whether it's the best thing for the club to keep pursuing it... I suppose it really depends on the player and the club.

But say the Warriors had this issue... They're owners are very rich, and very proud... Some of these types of guys don't like to look bad... They may pursue something like that... Just to make a point.

 

[shiznit]

Pretty sweet how the Broncos can just remove NRL rules from their contracts.

I don't know exactly how they would do it... The NRL could still refuse to register him if the contract doesn't comply with they're rules... Which maybe having one of these clauses is one of...

But the club could certainly protect themselves by having the player waive that clause from his contract...

But who really knows... I've seen some crazy contracts in my line of work... It's astounding what some people will agree to.

 

[DeeJ]

Find it humorous on the raiders form that there are calls for him to be dumped to reserve grade and forced to play prop

I'm all for this. It will toughen him up and get him used to tackling big men - perfect for his role in the halves in 2015. Thanks Raiders!

 

[Chief_Chujo]

FMD who cares about clauses. I lived in hope but now it's confirmed it's time to move on. He is gone.

If the Broncs cough up some decent compo I'm fine with releasing him early.

 

[natheel]

Could end up a Jamie Soward situation no heart in it anymore so piss him off to england

 

[BunniesMan]

If I was Canberra, if and when they're out of finals contention play him in the lowest grade of footy they can.

 

[Smiley]

Frustrated Canberra Raiders coach Ricky Stuart has demanded NRL clubs be compensated for developing juniors, blasting the Brisbane Broncos for ‘‘pinching’’ Anthony Milford and predicting Australian captain Cameron Smith will be next.

Stuart blasted the Broncos’ development strategy, given they have already signed Ben Barba and were reportedly targeting Smith and Daly Cherry Evans for 2015.

‘‘Why should we develop kids for other clubs like the Broncos, who have been probably one of the worst clubs over the last five years for development, yet they’ll go and pinch Anthony Milford and Cameron Smith.’’

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...2014-season-20131127-2y8zg.html#ixzz2lq1iufbB

Hypocrite. He had no issue stealing Norman from the Broncos.

 

[canberra_raiders2k2]

Would norman even start it 2014 or 2015?

Drop milf to reserve grade. I said it ages ago. We don't need more players that dont want to be here..we learned that in 2013.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Like others have said, probably the best outcome for the Raiders given the circumstances and the Broncos really can't afford to get too ahead of themselves in light of other situations.

I'm unsure about the Round 13 rule, I've heard a lot of insiders say it's a case by case scenario, then again, a representative from the NRL website said that it is a uniform rule, so we'll see if that comes into the equation.

I think you will find it is a uniform rule. The NRL will give the club the player is currently at the final chance, up to round 13, to match the offer the player has received. It is then up to the player to decide whether to accept the offer and stay or take the offer from the new club and leave. The "matching offer rule" does not mean the player is obligated to accept it, the player makes the final choice.

 

[Kiwi]

b. even if they win... then what? some cash but no player? Player is forced to see out his deal at a club he doesnt want to be at?
.

You mean like the Raiders are doing now with Milford in 2014? Not picking a fight just saying you can't say Milford should be forced to honor his contract with the Raiders and then imply that a player being forced to honor his contract by the courts when he doesn't want to be there is a bad outcome. Kinda hypocritical

 

[Raider_69]

There is a difference in making a player see out a contract for a year when you know its only a year, and making a guy see out a contract multi year the way Parra might have wanted to do with Papalii or like the Broncos might consider if Milford back flips.

but regardless, the raiders hanging on to him is nothing more than being merkins. It's not a desirable outcome and it's unlikely anything good will come of it.

This is a bad outcome for the raiders, but given we are just doing it to spite the Broncos at a very reasonable salary (i think he's still on his U20's deal, so pittance and you can bet he wont get another cent from us), it's a different kettle of fish than say the Eels forcing Papalii to see out a 4 year deal at 400k per year

but i dont want to get this twisted, this is not a good outcome, Milford is unlikely to play very good football for us given he doesnt want to be here... then again hopefully he'll be playing for Mounties so what do i care how his form is.

 

[Kiwi]

What at this stage would be the point in the raiders building around a spine player in 2014, who will not be here in 2015?

I absolutely think he should be playing reggies.
Send him the SL, he can be close to family there... we are not going to win the comp next year, so there is nothing my club can gain out of playing him, other than maybe making the 8 before being bundled out

We're far better off using the spine spots to develop combinations for players who are going to be around to hopefully push for a premiership in the next 3-4 years.

If Stuart plays Milford at #14 as a bench utility, so be it. Im cool with that, but given we are not a premiership contender in 2014, we are best blooding Cornish, Ahearn and Wighton in the 1-6-7 spots and seeing what we have with them, instead of wasting a year of development on Milford

And that's not to say we should release him early either. Cause im vindictive that way
No one apologies for picking up our scraps like Carney-Dugan-Fergo, not many are that concerned this kids been ripped from us at the time he could bring us back to relevency.
So i dont see any reason to do any other club favours here. Nor the kid btw, he made his bed too and good luck to him, but im not going to feel for a 19 year old kid about to earn millions to play football because he cant say no to mummy or daddy.

If the Raiders want to play their best player in reserves good luck to them. I understand what you are saying with regards to developing him or building combinations etc. Are guys like Cornish ready though? If so great, play them ahead of Milford, but don't cut your nose of to spite your face as they say.

 

[Raider_69]

Cutting our nose off to spite our face would be working on combinations that include Milford imo.
We're not going to win the comp next year, if we were close and needed Milf for a shot at the title, id be all about playing him

but we're not. Playing Milford might result in a 12 win season and maybe a top 8 spot. Not playing Milford will result in an 8 win season... when that's your floor and ceiling, there is no sense in playing the bloke

We're better off giving the game time to Ahearn and Cornish so that in 2015 they are better placed to take us where we've got to go.

Milford isnt our best player anymore, he's the Broncos best player. The Canberra Raiders probably shouldnt pick Brisbane Broncos in their top line up at the expense of their own kids who could use the FG experience.