Brisbane Broncos under investigation for possible salary cap irregularities

[POPEYE]

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

 

[THE CHAMP]

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.

its the glare from his trophy cabinet that's causing the blindness

 

[Nice Beaver]

its the glare from his trophy cabinet that's causing the blindness

I think your blindness may be caused by something else......

 

[bfoord]

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.

 

[El Diablo]

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.

rubbish

 

[perverse]

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.

I'm happy to be proven wrong by any sort of actual evidence - but I don't believe there is any. I'm almost certain you either made it up completely or are thinking of the Folau situation - which is chalk and cheese.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

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.

What are you smoking? You can't walk out on your employer and then expect them to pay you to work for someone else.

 

[bfoord]

The was something on the NRL website about it a while ago.

If i can be bothered ill go and find it.

 

[El Diablo]

you are full of shit

he can't walk out and sign with another club and expect his old one to pay

he voided his contract using the get out clause

 

[mxlegend99]

:lol:

Boyd requested the release And forfeits any right to money from the Knights and his $600k contract. The Knights only pay if they don't want to honour the contract and no one else will pay them what they are supposed to pay him.

 

[Burwood]

Not to mention the fact that $200,000 of Boyd's contract was made up of a 3rd party payment that fell through. The Knights have no obligation to make up that shortfall- they'd be acting illegally under the salary if they did guarantee it.

 

[Spot On]

Just incredible and delusional talk re contracts and payments in the last page or so.

The Broncs fans and those in charge at the Broncos club have very similar and unusual accounting ideas.

Some just don't count at all and are happy to see 300K disappear while some expect that other clubs should pay the wage of the players who have chosen to walk away from their previous club to move to Brisbane???

Others believe the players the Broncos don't want but who are under contract should simply forgo their future earnings and leave the club and have another club pay them out????

Freaking weird world of accounting north of the border.

 

[Spot On]

Small article in the tele saying Brisbane are paying $200k of Barba's contract,and $150k of Kennedy's.yet they still keep buying.

Nah, really?? This just can't be true. Can't be real. So unfair.

 

[Spot On]

That would be to do with the missing 3rd party deal from last season.

They will not pay shit for 2015.

3rd party payments are unguaranteed.

From NRL website:

Unlimited - Players can earn unlimited amounts from corporate sponsors who are not associated with the club and who do not use the game's intellectual property (no club logos, jerseys or emblems) provided these are pre-approved. These agreements may not be negotiated by the club as an incentive for a player to sign a contract, nor can they be guaranteed by the club.

Newcastle are not allowed to pay for the third party f**k up. Players managers should be very aware of the problems that exist around them. Surely.

 

[txta2]

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.

Not true, not all clubs are public listed. Just goes to show how regulators in ASIC and ATO and others are weak at corporate governance and a waste of tax payers money. It was a perfect white collar crime come unstuck by a Qlder dunce.

Gee wiz.or is it
Gee suss.

 

[Snappy]

 

[El Diablo]

especially yours

 

[txta2]

via wikipedia Brisbane have never been defeated in a grand final, and between 1991 and 2009, never failed to qualify for the finals. They are the most successful club since the National Rugby League began in 1998, winning a record three premierships in this era. They are also one of the most successful club in the history of Rugby League

 

[Snappy]

What, are you telling me everything on wiki isnt the truth ?

 

[txta2]