Rumours and Stuff

[Tiger5150]

Aren’t you arguing your own point here? Why the f**k would your lot argue with the NRL over Olam if “there is no way a player can retire with a pre-existing injury (pre-existing the last Contract signed) and not come under the cap.”?

"In order to qualify for the medical retirement, the club will have to successfully argue that Olam’s career has been cut short due to a one-off injury and not as the result of a chronic issue.
The Tigers declined to comment when contacted on Monday.

The knee that required surgery during the off-season was not the one that primarily hampered him during his time at the Storm. The Tigers believe he suffered an injury in round 18 against his old club at Leichhardt that has been the major contributor to his current predicament."

Wests Tigers star on the verge of shock medical retirement

The Papua New Guinea international is struggling to get himself on the training field and Wests Tigers will discuss his future with his management later this week.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Tiger5150]

That’s some fancy chatGPT work

How many references would you like?

Sam's retirement, Walker contract stand-off opens door for Souths to chase Latrell

South Sydney will have close to $1 million in the salary cap for 2020 after the NRL approved the medical retirement of Sam Burgess, meaning the remaining four years of his contract will be excluded from the cap.

www.nrl.com

 

[Eelementary]

He has upgraded his Contract since the kaufusi tackle.

Yes, indeed - however, the injury would have been aggravated by the nature lof Kaufusi's actions.

 

[Eelementary]

• Initiation:
  The process typically begins with a player's medical team recommending retirement due to a specific injury or condition.
• Club's Role:
  The club must then argue that the player's career was ended due to a one-off injury and not a chronic issue.
• NRL's Involvement:
  The NRL will likely review the club's argument and the player's medical history to determine if the medical retirement is valid.
• Consequences:
  If the medical retirement is approved, the player's contract is terminated, and they are no longer eligible to play for the NRL.

That's it in layman's terms, and I think you'll find that this is mostly for instances such as arthritis, etc. where players try to argue that they needed to retire early because of playing footy.

Concussion is a totally different ball game, and the concussion (and its associated symptoms) would be classed as a new injury, despite his underlying conditions, since it was aggravated by a frank incident.

 

[Eelementary]

100% it means that. Tigers are going through this now with Olam and also had to hang on to Packer for the full extent of his Contract because his injury pre-existed the last Contract.

If Parra signed him to a Contract with a pre-existing injury, they cant get his salary off the cap if he medically retires. How he gets paid (club or insurance) is irrelevant.

Seems to me like the Tigers' legal counsel simply did not argue their case effectively.

 

[Tiger5150]

Yes, indeed - however, the injury would have been aggravated by the nature lof Kaufusi's actions.

So chronic and not a one-off injury?

 

[Tiger5150]

Seems to me like the Tigers' legal counsel simply did not argue their case effectively.

Packers retirement was due to a foot injury which was pre-existing his Tigers Contract and therefore he couldnt be medically retired. Foot injuries are notoriously tricky to heal due to poor circulation etc. When did Mitchell sign his new Contract?

 

[Eelementary]

So chronic and not a one-off injury?

There is a distinct differences between "chronic", and an aggravation.

The hypothetical aggravation is considered a new injury, under legislation in NSW, and would be dealt with as such.

I am not saying that you're wrong - making the argument that a player needs to medially retire, and have the insurance absorb the cost, is something that the commission deals with with legal counsel.

I am saying that he would have a case to argue that his current malaise is an aggravation (ie: a new injury) caused by Kaufusi.

I hope, like @emjaycee says, that he makes a successful return to First Grade.

 

[Eelementary]

Packers retirement was due to a foot injury which was pre-existing his Tigers Contract and therefore he couldnt be medically retired. Foot injuries are notoriously tricky to heal due to poor circulation etc. When did Mitchell sign his new Contract?

What was the aggravation of this injury?

He couldn't be medially retired for his foot because there was no aggravation.

 

[Tiger5150]

Yes, indeed - however, the injury would have been aggravated by the nature lof Kaufusi's actions.

Were Kaufusi's actions (2021) prior to Mattersons last Contract upgrade(2024/5)? Simple question. If so, pre-existing.

 

[Eelementary]

Were Kaufusi's actions (2021) prior to Mattersons last Contract upgrade(2024/5)? Simple question. If so, pre-existing.

It doesn't matter.

If you have a pre-existing shoulder injury, and a frank incident aggravated that same shoulder, then the insurance is liable for that aggravation.

Again - the aggravation is separate from the underlying, chronic condition.

 

[lucablight]

Mixer has re-signed with the Broncos. I know a lot of people here were keen on him.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=CMWEB_MRE170_a_FBK&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.couriermail.com.au%2Fsport%2Fnrl%2Ffrancis-molo-cleared-to-join-dolphins-as-contractual-spat-comes-to-an-end%2Fnews-story%2F491d7eb4a574b3ae933007c97f195270&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=GROUPB-Segment-2-NOSCORE

 

[eels_fan]

Paix about to re-sign too which I guess doesn’t bode well for Kevvy Jnr

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

Were Kaufusi's actions (2021) prior to Mattersons last Contract upgrade(2024/5)? Simple question. If so, pre-existing.

Don't shoot yourself in the foot here. That will only aggravate your pre existing injury that you have convinced yourself after your current rehab, is no longer an issue.

 

[Tiger5150]

There is a distinct differences between "chronic", and an aggravation.

Mate the rule is very simple. The injury has to be a "one off" and not pre-existing and has to have had occured during the term of the current Contract.

The hypothetical aggravation is considered a new injury, under legislation in NSW, and would be dealt with as such.

Oh really, interesting. Would love to read the particular NSW legislation that you are referring to......please direct me....as such.

Home - NSW legislation

legislation.nsw.gov.au

What is it an aggravation of? Simple question.

I am not saying that you're wrong - making the argument that a player needs to medially retire, and have the insurance absorb the cost, is something that the commission deals with with legal counsel.

No its not. Where the money comes from has nothing to do with the Commission or the NRL. Whether the amount is included in the cap does. The RL Commision doesnt determine if an insurance company will "absorb the cost", the insurance company does FFS.

I am saying that he would have a case to argue that his current malaise is an aggravation (ie: a new injury) caused by Kaufusi.

Prior to signing his last Contract. Under the NRL rules he can not get a medical retirement exemption under the cap because of the Kaufusi tackle. Its pretty straightforward.

I hope, like @emjaycee says, that he makes a successful return to First Grade.

Then he couldnt get a medical retirement exemption anyway.

 

[Tiger5150]

It doesn't matter.

If you have a pre-existing shoulder injury, and a frank incident aggravated that same shoulder, then the insurance is liable for that aggravation.

Again - the aggravation is separate from the underlying, chronic condition.

Couldnt give a rats about the insurance. it doesnt matter where the money comes from, the full salary would be included in the cap.

 

[Tiger5150]

Don't shoot yourself in the foot here. That will only aggravate your pre existing injury that you have convinced yourself after your current rehab, is no longer an issue.

Foot injuries are notoriously hard to heal ;-)

 

[Tiger5150]

What was the aggravation of this injury?

He couldn't be medially retired for his foot because there was no aggravation.

Of course there was aggravation. He had foot surgery (prior) to his Tigers Contract. It got better and he played 33 games for the Tigers, then it got worse and he could no longer play.

Mate....its not that hard. He had a pre-existing injury, from before his contract, it got better but then it got worse and he couldnt play any more, but because the injury was originally from before his Tigers Contract, Tigers couldnt get exemption under the cap.

 

[JokerEel]

Were Kaufusi's actions (2021) prior to Mattersons last Contract upgrade(2024/5)? Simple question. If so, pre-existing.

Are you trying to argue the NRL won't allow Matto be medically retired for ongoing concussions?

 

[JohnStoppafarty]

Foot injuries are notoriously hard to heal ;-)

Nice change of person. Geez you'll love that if it happens. No one can say that's not pre existing. The Mitch/Matto quinella would make your day.
Anyway, if reports that Matto plans to stay on (notice I didn't write "play on") are true, then he's probably been advised that a medical retirement is no bueno.