Millward got sacked and was told so to his face by Mo. Hardly the same thing. Moran was told he didn't fiigure any more. Brown went on loan and decided he wanted to stay.
I don't see any of them saying they were forced out or saying they wanted to stay.
Dave
The fact remains that they were still under contract. OK, they didn't have the same argument that Orr has, regarding improved performance, but they were still offloaded by the club while under contract.
It still seems to me that contracts aren't worth anything; if either the club or the player wants out, the contract is ended. As far as I can see, the only difference it makes is financial.
I can't think of any example of either the club or a player being held to a contract that only one of the two wants.
I can't think of any example of either the club or a player being held to a contract that only one of the two wants.
The Aussies do this better than us. The most recent example was Lyon. Parra would not let him go and play for another side in the NRL and held his registration for the duration of his contract.
How Aussie sides are affected by players on the salary cap who are AWOL like that I don't know but Parra clearly were not going to release Lyon to play for a competitor while under contract to them.
I am sure we have had over here players who decide to see their contract out and "fight for their place".
I am sure we have had over here players who decide to see their contract out and "fight for their place".
I mean why else is DV still here?
Dave
Which is what I'd have liked Danny to do. He quotes the signing of Barrett & Leuluai as being a reason to go, rather than a reason to compete for a place.
New partnership... new team.. the half backs controll the game and if we can find two who are good at this and who work well together... we can surely get a good position and a few points on the board
