Inglis to fork out $113 000 to be released

[cleary89]

Did Broncos pay for his shoulder rehab or something? They will have to get that back, yes?

Whats the bet GI isn't doing any training atm.

 

[Evenflow]

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?

He's already getting 3rd party payments if he does that generation one project or whatever it is so there's no way he could also add over $100k on top of that as well, it has to end somewhere. It's totally irellevant who pays it because no matter who it is it must come off the Rabbits salary cap.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/an...-for-greg-inglis/story-e6frg1wu-1225949009534

Mundine's role in the negotiations is also under the spotlight.
PerthNow understands he offered to pay the legal bill to get the clearance from the Storm, but the NRL ruled any payment by Mundine would still have to be included in the cap.


"It's clearly a payment that is going to get him to that club," Gallop said yesterday. The Broncos insisted yesterday they had given Inglis every opportunity to wear their colours.

 

[bottle]

Handshake contracts and "a mans word" mean absolutely nothing these days.

Depends on the the man. There's plenty who'd honour it. Inglis isn't one of them.

 

[dragon_around]

What if the man was "The Man"?

 

[bottle]

What if the man was "The Man"?

Word

 

[BunniesMan]

What if the man was "The Man"?

Anthony The Man Mundine has a proven track record of his word being rock solid, rock solid like concrete.

 

[Nightward]

Anthony The Man Mundine has a proven track record of his word being rock solid, rock solid like concrete.

A man who bailed on a contract with the Broncos himself and being involved in this on top of that being cited as a paragon of virtue?

Irony. Not merely a descriptor of ferric content.

 

[BunniesMan]

A man who bailed on a contract with the Broncos himself and being involved in this on top of that being cited as a paragon of virtue?

Irony. Not merely a descriptor of ferric content.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[Evenflow]

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

It sounds like the Bronco's have ample proof that an agreement was reached and it was much more than a verbal one, it's in writing and would is certainly be legally binding if the Broncs chose to challenge it. As has been mentioned you have little to no idea about contract law in this case so probably better you shut it to avoid looking even sillier than you already have.

From cullen: "It's more disappointing to know we have in writing the signed-off agreement that we struck 5-6 months ago with Greg and his manager for him to play here."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/eels-join-the-greg-inglis-chase/story-e6frf9if-1225949091748

 

[BunniesMan]

It sounds like the Bronco's have ample proof that an agreement was reached and it was much more than a verbal one, it's in writing and would is certainly be legally binding if the Broncs chose to challenge it. As has been mentioned you have little to no idea about contract law in this case so probably better you shut it to avoid looking even sillier than you already have.

From cullen: "It's more disappointing to know we have in writing the signed-off agreement that we struck 5-6 months ago with Greg and his manager for him to play here."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/eels-join-the-greg-inglis-chase/story-e6frf9if-1225949091748

They can have all the proof in the world if they want, meaningless if they choose not to do anything about it as they obviously have.

 

[Evenflow]

They can have all the proof in the world if they want, meaningless if they choose not to do anything about it as they obviously have.

Whooshka! Way to miss the point, which was you saying that they Bronco's wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they chose to contest it if he didn't sign an actual contract.

 

[BunniesMan]

Whooshka! Way to miss the point, which was you saying that they Bronco's wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they chose to contest it if he didn't sign an actual contract.

Yes but i'm saying it doesn't matter, whether they have 1 leg or 100 legs, if they're going to sit on their arse and not do anything about it, its a moot point.

 

[johns_reds]

I reckon after Broncos sent inglis to the physio they heard how stuffed his shoulder really is which is why they are not chasing him so hard ;-)

 

[El Diablo]

They can have all the proof in the world if they want, meaningless if they choose not to do anything about it as they obviously have.

it is the NRL who should step in like they did with Turner

 

[BunniesMan]

I reckon after Broncos sent inglis to the physio they heard how stuffed his shoulder really is which is why they are not chasing him so hard ;-)

Yeah, and of course there are no physios in Sydney so what are we gunna do if that's true.:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

 

[BunniesMan]

it is the NRL who should step in like they did with Turner

What for? To force a club to pay big bucks for a player who doesn't want to be there. To force a player to play where he doesn't want to? Noone benefits from that. The Broncos themselves have said they've moved on, they're over it. They have other plans for that money that will give them long term benefits for a bit of short term pain. It's all good without the NRL sticking their incompetent nose where it's not needed.

 

[El Diablo]

What for?

because he already is contracted to another club

that's what they did in the Turner case

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-blocks-turner-plan/story-e6frep5x-1111112541829

NRL blocks Turner plan

* Mick Daly
* From: The Courier-Mail
* November 17, 2006 11:00PM

THE NRL will not allow renegade winger Steve Turner to play for Melbourne next season.

The NRL has revealed it will not allow Turner to line up for the Storm even if a court declares his verbal agreement with the Gold Coast Titans invalid.

The 22-year-old agreed to a three-year-deal with the Titans in July before backflipping in August and signing another contract with the Storm.

He has previously indicated he would take the NRL to court to remain with the Storm and avoid sitting on the sidelines until 2010.

But NRL boss David Gallop yesterday claimed the game's governing body had full power in determining Turner's playing future – irrespective of what a court ruled.

"There's a purely black and white legal side to it and there's a notion of fairness, of what's fair, side to it," Gallop said. "We'd need to consider that if there was a court decision.

"We've got absolute discretion to not register a contract so we haven't considered (the possibility of Turner staying with Melbourne)."

Asked if that meant the NRL could ignore a court's decision and force Turner to either play with the Titans or not at all, Gallop replied: "Yes but obviously we would look very carefully at any court decision."

Gallop admitted the matter would be detrimental to the game if it was played out through the courts.

But he insisted the NRL was not about to change its stance and said he had even offered to meet with Turner in an attempt to resolve it.

"Any time this sort of thing reaches the court it can be damaging. Litigation is very expensive and it is to be discouraged," Gallop said.

"We would certainly encourage (Turner) to accept that he entered into an agreement with the Titans.

"He went on television and radio and said how much he was looking forward to (joining the Titans)."

 

[BranVan3000]

It sounds like the Bronco's have ample proof that an agreement was reached and it was much more than a verbal one, it's in writing and would is certainly be legally binding if the Broncs chose to challenge it. As has been mentioned you have little to no idea about contract law in this case so probably better you shut it to avoid looking even sillier than you already have.

From cullen: "It's more disappointing to know we have in writing the signed-off agreement that we struck 5-6 months ago with Greg and his manager for him to play here."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/eels-join-the-greg-inglis-chase/story-e6frf9if-1225949091748

The Broncos broke the contract, not Inglis. Regardless of him not showing up and such the Bronco's made the move to cancel any obligations he had with them last week.

 

[BunniesMan]

because he already is contracted to another club

that's what they did in the Turner case

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-blocks-turner-plan/story-e6frep5x-1111112541829

Don't ignore most of my point. Noone wins if the NRL steps in, not Souths, not Broncos, not Inglis. There's articles in the paper about how Broncos already are moving on with their plans. If the NRL stepped in there's a strong possibility GI would go to france. Again, another lose-lose situation.

 

[El Diablo]

good

i hope he buggers off to France and never comes back