@happy_tiger said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1088649) said:
So every club starts offering extra year contracts to near retired players (with TPA’s )
Gee that’s not going to get rorted by the clubs with more money and bigger chances of winning premierships
May as well shove the copper pipe and barbed wire up the WT’s clackers now and remove the copper pipe
It’s a full moon tonight isn’t it
So players aren't allowed to retire when they have an injury they feel is too difficult to overcome? He has been assessed by NRL doctors and will take 2 years to overcome that injury, the Rabbits then approached the NRL and asked for permission to give him a job that will take 10 years to make the value of his contract. This is how it should work!
It wasn't a new injury, it was an infection from an old injury he had surgery on. If it was a new injury then I could stomach that. But as usual, the NRL set the rules, then open a window where they can use their discretion. If it was a fair dinkum situation, there'd be no reason for a 10 year admin deal.
The NRL is so consistently inconsistent, you could set your watch by it (though no matter what time it is, they'd still say it's different depending on what team they are dealing with).
I don't care when his injury occurred, I don't care if he has just decided he doesn't want to play anymore. Once a player retires and forgoes his salary I don't think a team should have to carry that on their cap!
I notice that no one here seems to mention the fact the Matulino didn't announce his retirement until after the approval for the medical retirement was granted where Burgess retired irrespective of the outcome. To me that make Mats retirement look more suss than Burgess', Mats gets the payout and Burgess doesn't.
I'm actually happy both salaries have been removed from the respective caps, that is how it should be if a player no longer wishes to play!
Sam Burgess signed that last contract late 2018 with Souths, for dollars in the vicinity of near $1m a year, for four years, starting in 2020.
That contract influenced him staying with Souths, and not going to another club. Now Souths want out of that contract
only a month or so in. In reality even if he signed with another club back in 2018, starting in 2020, it doesn't seem that he would have gotten there.
But this notion of offering players long term contracts late in their career, influences them to stay with the club when they could have gone elsewhere, and the fact that Souths now are allowed to change that deal to some made-up rubbish administration deal is incredibly unfair to every other club. We are still paying the penalty for offering Robbie a deal after he was leaving our club, as their reasoning was it influenced his deciding to leave (even though his contract with us was still paid out in full so their logic doesn't add up there).
Souths have gained an advantage here in retaining Burgess, via a dodgy means that no other club is permitted. NRL have again made up special one-off rules to meet their inconsistent biased interests. Under this new V'landys, it just seems like more of the same old corrupt rubbish.
It is not Souths that want out of the deal? Burgess has retired and he retired irrespective of the NRL's decision to count his money on the cap. Unlike us who waited for that decision before announcing Matulino's retirement, I know what looks more suss to anyone not wearing black white and orange tinted glasses.
Your use of Farah's case as an example of shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation. The main problem in the Farah situation was that they did not disclose the role to the NRL, possibly hid it from the NRL according to various reports on the situation. Souths were open and clear with the NRL regarding both Burgess' and Inglis' roles after their retirements and sought approval for and assistance with setting up the deals. Why were we trying to hide it?
