No top up from ARU for Choc

[waltzing Meninga]

A player exercises a clause in a contract.

What the hell is the problem with that, Bay? He is honouring his agreement, as is the club.

The problem I see with it, is that Shif is taking advantage and exploiting the club to a certain extent. The clause in his contract should only be for if he has a problem for the new coach, or wants to follow elliot or something related to the coaching situation.

He has just used this as an escape hatch to gain more more money for something completely un-related to the coaching situation which his clause should be for.

To me its a big kick in the guts comming from the captain of the club.

 

[Boing Boing]

The problem I see with it, is that Shif is taking advantage and exploiting the club to a certain extent. The clause in his contract should only be for if he has a problem for the new coach, or wants to follow elliot or something related to the coaching situation.

He has just used this as an escape hatch to gain more more money for something completely un-related to the coaching situation which his clause should be for.

To me its a big kick in the guts comming from the captain of the club.

That's a common misconception. Jason Croker is the club captain. Clinton Schifcoske is the 1st Grade captain.

 

[Tokyo_Raider]

The problem I see with it, is that Shif is taking advantage and exploiting the club to a certain extent. The clause in his contract should only be for if he has a problem for the new coach, or wants to follow elliot or something related to the coaching situation.

He has just used this as an escape hatch to gain more more money for something completely un-related to the coaching situation which his clause should be for.
.

It could just as easily be argued that Shif insisted on the clause as he had previously elected not to seek employment elsewhere based on his relationship with the coach.

But really WM, are you seriously suggesting that you can impute an intention to an unambiguous clause to a contract? It is absolutely not up to you to decide under the circumstances in which the clause can be exercised. The clause exists, and Shif has the right to exercise it.

Sorry you feel let down, but your expectations are unreasonable and based on a false premise.

 

[edabomb]

Choc's away plans not dead yet despite Reds' shortcomings
Chris Wilson
Friday, 23 June 2006

Player manager Steve Gillis said the door was "definitely not shut" for Canberra Raiders captain Clinton 'Choc' Schifcofske to cross codes and play Super 14 rugby union with the Queensland Reds next year.

Another door might have also opened for Raiders five-eighth Jason Smith yesterday, with two NRL clubs now interested in signing the veteran playmaker.

Gillis said it was most likely Schifcofske would remain with the Raiders next season after the ARU refused to top-up the three-year offer made to him by the Reds.

But Gillis said he was still exploring extra third-party sponsorship for Schifcofske in Brisbane, while playing in the English Super League was another option.

The Canberra Times understands the Reds could afford to offer Schifcofske $250,000 a season, $90,000 short of matching his Raiders contract.

"The door's definitely not shut," Gillis said. "Whether or not [the Reds] can improve their position is yet to be seen. We're up in the air at the moment. We'll probably know one way or another within a week."

Schifcofske, 30, has also attracted interest from English clubs but his options are limited because he will be classed as an import. He has been unable to gain a European Union passport, despite having Polish grandparents.

Schifcofske is contracted to the Raiders until the end of 2008 but can use an escape clause because coach Matt Elliott is leaving Canberra for Penrith next season.

"There is still an option overseas but I would think in the next 2weeks we'd have to, in good faith, let Canberra know what his intentions are," Gillis said.

"He loves Canberra and he gets on well with everyone down there.

"He'll do the right thing by the club. He's got the clause but it's not as if he's going to fish between now and October 31. He'll make a decision as quickly as possible."

Raiders coach Matt Elliott said he was convinced Schifcofske would be successful wherever he played. He predicted Schifcofske would remain at the Raiders.

"I don't think that's going to happen. I think he's going to be at the Canberra Raiders and I think he's going to continue to do a magnificent job for this club," Elliott said.

Incoming Raiders coach Neil Henry refused to comment on the contract drama, but said Schifcofske was an "integral part" of plans for next season.

Smith, 34, will return to the paddock for the Raiders in Sunday's match against the Roosters at Canberra Stadium.

It seems he will also take the field next year, for his 18th season of first grade.

Souths chief executive Shane Richardson rang Smith yesterday and said the Rabbitohs would table a formal one-year offer by Monday.

Smith's manager Sam Ayoub said another club - which he would not name - had also expressed interest yesterday.

Raiders chief executive Simon Hawkins said the Raiders would not consider offering Smith another one-year deal to boost their experience in 2007.

The Raiders have already lost Simon Woolford (St George Illawarra), Adam Mogg (France) and Michael Hodgson (Gold Coast) from next season.

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/de...ry_id=489593&category=Rugby League&m=6&y=2006
-----------------------------------------------------

Well it would still appear Clinton is still keen to head to the Reds, if they can get the deal together in the next week.

Your email campaign didn't have much of an effect, GE.

 

[hrundi99]

No quotes from Schif, just his agent.

I'll give you the tip. Agents love seeing their names in print.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

It could just as easily be argued that Shif insisted on the clause as he had previously elected not to seek employment elsewhere based on his relationship with the coach.

But really WM, are you seriously suggesting that you can impute an intention to an unambiguous clause to a contract? It is absolutely not up to you to decide under the circumstances in which the clause can be exercised. The clause exists, and Shif has the right to exercise it.

Sorry you feel let down, but your expectations are unreasonable and based on a false premise.

Mate Im not suggesting he has done anything wrong or illegal - just Immorral. The Raiders were good enough to give him the clause in case he had any troubles with a new coach such as Brian Smith or Wayne Bennitt (which is all I thought the clause was there to proctect) and he twists it and uses it to suite his own financial needs.

He has every legal right to excersise his right to use the clause, but Its just not something a captain of the raiders should do. Its a massive kick in the guts and Ive lost a heap of respect for him as a person and leader, as many on here have.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

No quotes from Schif, just his agent.

I'll give you the tip. Agents love seeing their names in print.

Mate Shif was on the radio saying he would go if they have the money. Its blatantly obvious he wants out

 

[Tokyo_Raider]

Mate Im not suggesting he has done anything wrong or illegal - just Immorral. The Raiders were good enough to give him the clause in case he had any troubles with a new coach such as Brian Smith or Wayne Bennitt (which is all I thought the clause was there to proctect) and he twists it and uses it to suite his own financial needs.

How do you know that's why the clause was inserted? You're imputing a reason when in reality you have no idea.

You're making a lot of assumptions, which is fine, but then making judgements based upon those assumptions, which is less so.

 

[Bay56]

No quotes from Schif, justs agent.

I'll give you the tip. Agents love seeing their names in print.

well hrundi why doesnt he tell his manager to shut his big gob as he isnt interested in using a "get out" clause to leave his beloved Raiders

I dont want to sound rude but you guys are quite naive if you dont think Schif is fully supportive of his manager and that, as Waltzing Meninga suggested, the chances are the clause was inserted in the event of the coach leaving (tbh I'm absolutely certain that that is the case).

If you guys want to condone Schif's actions that's fine ... expect more of it in the future and then come back and report here of your support for each and every player that exercises such a lame clause.

I support the Raiders and anyone that assists in taking the club to a premiership ... that is a simple equation for me.

 

[Chachi]

Exactly. It's also made out by some that Schif has been given an offer too good to refuse. Basically I get the impression he'd be on the first bus to Brisbane if the Reds coughed up a similar amout of cash to what he is getting here.

T_R I admire your appraisal of the "free market" aspect of the situation, and it's obvious you consider money to be a very important aspect of life, but this situation is all about loyalty to the club vs going back to QLD. It's not like he's being offered a Matt Giteau type deal he can't refuse.

If Choc does go (he probably won't now) good on him. I also think the Union "challenge" is a piss poor excuse, but I am past the point of caring to be honest - especially if it means Zilly gets a start next year.