The price that they have to pay in who and for how long, is still to be decided, so I guess he's not playing until that's done. Clubs will be a bit stronger (but not the Tigers) now after the Lomax issue and not just buckle if someone wants out. If you have the contract you have the upper hand,
Maybe, but unlike the NRL 3rd party contracts don't have to be approved by anyone and have no bearing on what the Force or RA will pay. The Force is owned by Andrew Forest who had an assessed worth of over $30B - he'll be taken care of whilst he plays there.
Activating an option for a player who hasn't signed an extension seems like a plan - not! Why extend a player whose mind is elsewhere, that seems pointless and a distraction for everyone. He's not worth another Galvin saga. If he wants to go then let him - someone else will wear the guernsey...
If we release him to take up a contract with another club we may not necessarily have to contribute to the contract, especially if that club wants him badly enough to pay him more than our offer. Then we would have the money saved. Bula is an only slightly more talented option than Sloane from...
Probably just before we spent an eternity waiting for a player ( Tedesco, Woods, Moses Galvin) to commit and leave us in the lurch when they did not. Parramatta just showed what it takes to take on the players/managers and win - make a stand and back it with some resolve.
Only with the consent of the players involved - plenty of clubs ( Essendon, GWS, Suns etc) refused trades for players last year and required the player to honour the contract - players have the right to say no and the club is required to honour the contract. It's done with everyone's knowledge...
This isn't slavery "Skelton for Barnett is a good trade." you can't trade people. If they don't want to go or don't want to play @WTs nothing will happen.