Inglis to fork out $113 000 to be released

[meltiger]

Would that mean if he takes the Storm to court then the costs will come out of Inglis' salary? It would have to given the dispute has nothing to do with any other parties other than he and the Storm. If it does go that far and make it to court (which i doubt) Inglis will more than likely be up against the very same lawyers that defended him for belting his missus. Good luck with that Greg....

Only a guess here, but maybe the theory is that if Choc backs him in a court case, that the costs may come out cheaper than if he stumped up for the entire 113k


As Choc is an employee of the club though, any benefit Greg receives from him certainly should be under the cap.

not even they deserved to be f**ked over like that.

lol... My heart truly bleeds for Brisbane... lol


As for Greg, as much as I despise where he is going, fact is, he is a professional and he must have gotten a better offer. Brisbane maybe should have tried inking a deal with him before going around to all and sundry claiming he was coming.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

Only a guess here, but maybe the theory is that if Choc backs him in a court case, that the costs may come out cheaper than if he stumped up for the entire 113k


As Choc is an employee of the club though, any benefit Greg receives from him certainly should be under the cap.

Choc is no longer an employee of Souths. He was indigenous liason officer a few years back, but I believe he hasn't been employed by Souths for a while now.

As for Greg, as much as I despise where he is going, fact is, he is a professional and he must have gotten a better offer. Brisbane maybe should have tried inking a deal with him before going around to all and sundry claiming he was coming.

Exactly!

Happened to Souths with Luke Lewis and this is the very reason that I won't be getting carried away until I see Inglis actually sign a contract with us. At the moment it looks good, but its all just speculation until he signs on the dotted line.

 

[BunniesMan]

Yep, you guys are in good hands Nick is my uncle and definatly knows what he's doing.

I think i detect mocking. Well Pappas does know what he's doing, the bloke did take on and beat news ltd once, so he's not a moron in the courtroom. If he thinks the case is winnable, we might not have to pay the bill, and the Storm might have to sack another player for 2011.

 

[Apey]

Yep, we now have aeroplanes that fly in wet weather.

And Souths are no longer relevant.

 

[BunniesMan]

And Souths are no longer relevant.

Yeah the 2nd favourites, The club who has managed to get the best back in the comp. Yeah heaps irrelevant.

 

[Zoggy]

I think i detect mocking. Well Pappas does know what he's doing, the bloke did take on and beat news ltd once, so he's not a moron in the courtroom. If he thinks the case is winnable, we might not have to pay the bill, and the Storm might have to sack another player for 2011.

No mocking mate, were related. Hes a smart guy and definatly knows what he is doing. I dont like Souths as a club but Nick would never do anything stupid to hurt the club or his rep, therefore if the deal with Inglis is true than its 100 % legal and under the cap.

 

[BunniesMan]

No mocking mate, were related. Hes a smart guy and definatly knows what he is doing. I dont like Souths as a club but Nick would never do anything stupid to hurt the club or his rep, therefore if the deal with Inglis is true than its 100 % legal and under the cap.

Ok ok then, my mistake. I thought you were being sarcastic at first.

 

[El Diablo]

why are the NRL not doing the same thing as they did with Steve Turner?

 

[Nightward]

That completely backs up the arguement that he reneged on his contract?

There's a bit of a difference between "I no longer wish to be here and work for you, please release me from my final year of my contract, I'm willing to pay you the money I would have earned." and "I want more money so even though I proised I'd come and work for you I'm going elsewhere, suck it."

 

[applesauce]

why are the NRL not doing the same thing as they did with Steve Turner?

Are you suggesting the Broncos get compensation if he signs with Souths (in the form of juniors)?

 

[El Diablo]

i fail to see the difference between Turner and Inglis

both agreed yet the NRL threatned Turner and said he had to go to the GC and would not register his contract with Melbourne

 

[Frank_Grimes]

i fail to see the difference between Turner and Inglis

both agreed yet the NRL threatned Turner and said he had to go to the GC and would not register his contract with Melbourne

Brisbane must be actually content to let Inglis back out. If they weren't you'd be hearing a lot more about it.

 

[BunniesMan]

Brisbane must be actually content to let Inglis back out. If they weren't you'd be hearing a lot more about it.

Inglis has not signed a contract. He gave no more than a handshake agreement. The Broncos wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. Who can prove what GI did and didn't say to them over a period of months. Until a player signs the contract he can do whatever he likes. Handshakes and a mans word are the product of a different century.

And why would you want a player who you know would rather be playing with another team anyway.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Maybe this will teach people to come into the 21st century. It's 2010, not 1910. Handshake contracts and "a mans word" mean absolutely nothing these days. Nothing matters if the contract isn't signed. At least he hasn't done a SBW. And Mundine is apparently in the business of talking people into playing for NRL clubs now, that's a change for the better.

Completely incorrect on all counts, but especially the highlighted text. Refer back to the Titans/Storm/Turner drama a few years ago. GC could prove (through emails) that Turner had agreed to terms and would sign. That was all that was required to force the issue. If the Broncos wanted to, they could force Inglis to sign with them, or even sit out the 2011 season as Turner may have been forced to do during the Storm/Titans fiasco. The only reason this situation isn't developing into a simlar battle is that the Broncos appear to be happy to let Inglis go elsewhere, rather than go through the motions.

I'm certain there would be emails and other evidence that prove Inglis agreed to terms with Brisbane.

If you're going to dish out advice on Contract Law, you might want know a little bit about the subject.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Inglis has not signed a contract. He gave no more than a handshake agreement. The Broncos wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. Who can prove what GI did and didn't say to them over a period of months. Until a player signs the contract he can do whatever he likes. Handshakes and a mans word are the product of a different century.

And why would you want a player who you know would rather be playing with another team anyway.

I've pretty much dismantled the argument above in my previous post, but I'll say it again - A signature on a contract is not required to bind a player to a club.

 

[BunniesMan]

I've pretty much dismantled the argument above in my previous post, but I'll say it again - A signature on a contract is not required to bind a player to a club.

Even if they do have some rights legally in this situation. Why would they want him at this point. A week ago they would have loved to bring him in but now why would you, even if you could, spend 500k a year paying a bloke who you know wants to be elsewhere.

That's why they've let it go. A willing Inglis would have been worth the money, an unwilling Inglis and there's much better things to do with that money, like front ending contracts now to go on a big spending spree a year or two down the track.

 

[meltiger]

Choc is no longer an employee of Souths. He was indigenous liason officer a few years back, but I believe he hasn't been employed by Souths for a while now.

Ah fair enough, the article I read this morning must have been short on fact checking. It seemed to suggest Mundine was still an employee of the club.



In that case, if Choc was to hand Greg 113k, and Greg just happened to pay the Storm back, why would it be included in the cap, rather than a standard 3rd party arrangement?


Or am I looking at the 3rd party situation too simplisticly?

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Even if they do have some rights legally in this situation. Why would they want him at this point. A week ago they would have loved to bring him in but now why would you, even if you could, spend 500k a year paying a bloke who you know wants to be elsewhere.

That's why they've let it go. A willing Inglis would have been worth the money, an unwilling Inglis and there's much better things to do with that money, like front ending contracts now to go on a big spending spree a year or two down the track.

So you agree with my first post in full then. Glad you got there eventually.

 

[meltiger]

i fail to see the difference between Turner and Inglis

both agreed yet the NRL threatned Turner and said he had to go to the GC and would not register his contract with Melbourne

Very fair points, as has been suggested, could just be a case of Brisbane not standing their ground as Melbourne did.


Would be the only thing you could guess because you are right, there is very little difference between this and the Turner situation.

 

[BunniesMan]

So you agree with my first post in full then. Glad you got there eventually.

That's how i roll.