Brisbane Broncos under investigation for possible salary cap irregularities

[Snappy]

especially yours

lol nah. It's the usual Bronco haters that still have irritated genitals.

As far as Broncos, and myself are concerned, this matter is done and dusted. We're focused on building a solid squad and being competitive in 2015.

 

[THE CHAMP]

lol nah. It's the usual Bronco haters that still have irritated genitals.

As far as Broncos, and myself are concerned, this matter is done and dusted. We're focused on building a solid squad and being competitive in 2015.

yep that'll do me.
so much butthurt in here

 

[orochimaru]

Broncos had access to a state worth of cattle and being owned by news limited helps too

 

[orochimaru]

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.

If he requested the leave it nullify his income at knights

 

[bfoord]

If he requested the leave it nullify his income at knights

No it doesn't, I finally found what I was looking for direct from the NRL website.

What are the financial implications for the clubs in the mid-season transfer process?

Here's a hypothetical example. Let's look at a player named Duncan Biscuits who plays for Darwin. Duncan is contracted until the end of 2013 for $300,000 per season. At the end of May, Duncan would have been paid seven months or $175,000.

Therefore he is owed $425,000 (five months of 2012, plus 2013). Another club asks Darwin if Duncan can be released to play for them. The new club offers him $350,000 for the same period. For Duncan to move clubs, Darwin will have to pay Duncan the extra $75,000 he would have earned if he stayed. By doing so, Darwin has 'freed up' $300,000 to recruit another player for 2013. Darwin must also absorb the extra $75,000 they paid Duncan into their salary cap.

http://www.nrl.com/understanding-mid-season-player-moves/tabid/10874/newsid/67755/default.aspx

In the hypothetical example given on NRL.com, It is not Darwin (the players existing club) that initiates the release, it is Duncan/the new club, yet Darwin (the players existing club) still has to pay Duncan the money he would have earned had he stayed with them. Since it is less than the money the new club offered.

Very similar situation to Boyd, the Knights and the Broncos. In fact you could just substitute the Name Boyd for Duncan, The Knights for Darwin and the Broncos as the new club.

 

[El Diablo]

this isn't a mid season transfer you mong

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

I really had high hopes for Duncan Biscuits. Really could have been anything.

 

[Spot On]

Did Duncan have a get out clause in his contract to follow a 65 year old man everywhere he goes???

 

[AlwaysGreen]

I really had high hopes for Duncan Biscuits. Really could have been anything.

Unfortunately he crumbled under pressure. I'd still like to have a beer with Duncan.

 

[bfoord]

this isn't a mid season transfer you mong

It doesn't have to be a mid season transfer. In that scenario the player is also under contract for the following year. Same thing applys until the player would have been off contract.

The only way the Knights (or Darwin in the example) would not have to pay part of Boyds contract is if the Broncos matched what the Knights were paying Boyd.

 

[El Diablo]

fmd

are you taking the piss?

surely someone can't be that stupid :?

 

[Miller was a legend]

Didn't Boyd ask for a release?

Knight pay jack shit

 

[El Diablo]

he used a get out clause

if Wayne left then he could too

 

[The Pelican]

No it doesn't, I finally found what I was looking for direct from the NRL website.


http://www.nrl.com/understanding-mid-season-player-moves/tabid/10874/newsid/67755/default.aspx

In the hypothetical example given on NRL.com, It is not Darwin (the players existing club) that initiates the release, it is Duncan/the new club, yet Darwin (the players existing club) still has to pay Duncan the money he would have earned had he stayed with them. Since it is less than the money the new club offered.

Very similar situation to Boyd, the Knights and the Broncos. In fact you could just substitute the Name Boyd for Duncan, The Knights for Darwin and the Broncos as the new club.

It doesn't have to be a mid season transfer. In that scenario the player is also under contract for the following year. Same thing applys until the player would have been off contract.

The only way the Knights (or Darwin in the example) would not have to pay part of Boyds contract is if the Broncos matched what the Knights were paying Boyd.

:lol: