POPEYE
Coach
- Messages
- 11,397
Fair point, he did it all within the rules, but I think it's a bit hypocritical is all I'm saying.
I said that but in a way AG wouldn't understand, just to liven up the occasion
Fair point, he did it all within the rules, but I think it's a bit hypocritical is all I'm saying.
Correct, Boyd was short-changed (according to him) $200k in 3rd party money. That is the money that is under dispute. Boyd was the one that requested the release, there's no chance we're paying any of his 2015 contract. We were "happy" to have him play for us next year.
Broncos fans upping the ante with their delusions. Benny blinds them.
Boyd has requested the release. The Knights don't have to pay any of his contract. :lol:
That's not entirely correct,
Assuming, Boyd is on 600k a year on his final year if the Knights contract, then NRL rules state that he must get that in 2015 regardless of who he plays for.
Now, assume for a second that the Broncos offer is 400k a year, then if the Knights agree to release him, then the Knights must make up the difference.
It doesn't matter if Boyd or the Knights initiate the release.
There is no rule that states that to the best of my knowledge. Are you extrapolating that from the Folau/Parra situation? Because it's nothing like that at all. Boyd had a clause in his contract that stated he was a free agent if Bennett left. He's free to go somewhere for less if he wishes, but there's certainly no rule stating that the Knights have to foot the bill. If the Knights asked him to leave and severed the contract (would still need to be mutual agreement between the player and the club, unlike Boyds situation where the power is all his to leave if he wishes), they would certainly owe him recompense if he was only able to get $400k. Unfortunately for Boyd, the Knights were happy for him to stay - which leaves him in the position of any other player that is off contract and exploring their options.That's not entirely correct,
Assuming, Boyd is on 600k a year on his final year if the Knights contract, then NRL rules state that he must get that in 2015 regardless of who he plays for.
Now, assume for a second that the Broncos offer is 400k a year, then if the Knights agree to release him, then the Knights must make up the difference.
It doesn't matter if Boyd or the Knights initiate the release.
That's not entirely correct,
Assuming, Boyd is on 600k a year on his final year if the Knights contract, then NRL rules state that he must get that in 2015 regardless of who he plays for.
Now, assume for a second that the Broncos offer is 400k a year, then if the Knights agree to release him, then the Knights must make up the difference.
It doesn't matter if Boyd or the Knights initiate the release.
Small article in the tele saying Brisbane are paying $200k of Barba's contract,and $150k of Kennedy's.yet they still keep buying.
That would be to do with the missing 3rd party deal from last season.
They will not pay shit for 2015.
Finally, to say that this case would have been treated differently at any other club is ignorant. There is nothing qualitative or quantitative that supports this hypothetical, and it is nothing more than speculation.