Use of the term broken contract isn't a big deal. It's usually the comments about how "contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on" that set people off.
Again you are missing the point here. From a footy supporter perspective, which is what we all are here, when players can renegotiate(break the current contract) and sign a new one with another club that allows a player to walkout of his existing club, then from a supporters point of view, "contracts aren't worth the paper they were written on".
In other words the player has broken his current contract with the approval of his current club for whatever new terms they have agreed upon in said new contract. Supporters don't give a sh*t about the intricacies of the renegotiations nor should they. All we see is the player can walk. Look at Matterson, how happy do you think those Tigers supporters are? To them their best forward broke his agreement to play for them under the contract he first signed with
them.
So since that is possible from our point of view, the supporters, contracts aren't worth a hill of stinking beans.
Note: Again, we all know that legally a mutual renegotiation has taken place. You aren't a legal wizard pointing that out mate and making a big deal about it, you just sound like a wanker on a forum that needs to prove to himself that he is smarter then everybody else.
So I'll say it again, "WE ALL GET IT!!!"