As I posted on OzHoops just a minute ago:

Perth quite openly pursued Bruton as well (and Cal Bruton acknowledged it on OzHoops) and Cairns were said (in a newspaper article) to be in the mix. Bit of a grey area with the "official" free agent list and the supposed verbal "Look after yourselves if you have to" from the previous owner. Could get messy.

Does Gibson get drawn into it as well? And Mackinnon given that the Tigers have clearly made contact?

Did Townsville get fined when Rillie was taken from West Sydney, or was it just Rillie who had to pay up?

Does a complaint have to be filed by a club to get action?

good points re: the bullets situation.
i remember reading emma hamilton smith from the management team saying some weeks ago when a buyer didn't look like it would come through, that although all the players (except those that were clearly free agents on the free agents list already) that although contractually it would be wrong for the other players to leave, morally they would not oppose it.
however, i believe the context (and this is the important part to management) was that if a buyer was found (which it was) then the still contracted players would stay.

it was not until a buyer had already been found and confirmed to much fanfare up here, that a week later, boucher and cj were confirmed to have signed after the price wasn't right.
the bullets management have a strong argument.
the only argument the players that have signed elsewhere have, is that it wasn't enough money.
i could be way wrong, but to me, that constitutes a breach of contract?

it's gonna be interesting to see what happens with a few of them.
the proviso under which the bullets want to keep dusty is that he has to have his citizenship sorted before the start of the season, otherwise, they can't get the other imports they want because he'd still be a 10 or too high on the points cap.

i suppose they can expect that from him because technically he's a free agent, so it's not like they're throwing in another term to his contract- he can do what he likes.....

gibson has already renewed his contract- not sure what you mean about gibbo, isaac?
could you clarify?

Talked to other teams while under contract, I would bet. Dragons, Tigers, etc would've talked to him for sure.

oh i see what you meant now.
yeah gibson will probably not get drawn into talking to other clubs because as i say, management at the time didn't have a problem with ANYBODY talking to other clubs and gibbo freely admitted to it in interviews.
the problem the bullets have is that these signings occurred AFTER a buyer was publicised, so they weren't the grounds under which the bullets management were happy to let them look elsewhere.
these signings occurred after a buyer was found because the bullets didn't like the money the new buyer was offering- doesn't seem like justification to go fishing elsewhere.
i seriously doubt there's any contract that exists where there's a clause that says: if you don't like the price we give you while you're still under contract, feel free to see what else is out there.

Yes, funny situation for players signing cap-busting salaries but with lesser reported contracts - kinda locked in afterwards!

So, have they released Mackinnon?

apparently they are still wrangling with him.
i think if he doesn't want to be here and has been so public about it, then the bullets management should just cut their losses with him and let him go.
in an interview with him yesterday, he said: "going home cannot come soon enough."
ouch!

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23615605-10389,00.html

They should try the same tact with Bruton and Boucher. ;)

No point in locking them in if they don't want to be there.

i agree.
i think it also devalues the club somewhat by wanting and trying to hang on to someone who doesn't want you.
kinda like a girl that does the same thing when you've had enough, huh? hehe

Eddy to new owners

look at all the great players you will have on your team that are under contract.

New owners

yeah that is great we can go after a few new names as well to complement the league MVP forward and one of the best point guards as well. i am really excited about this.

^ ^
0_O

Isaac, duh! - I disagree. There is certainly a lot of value in keeping a league MVP and a star pg even if they don't want to be there - that is talent you can't replace and sometimes as an owner you have to bite the bullet and say "look you guys are staying until your contract runs out". Come game time they are professionals, they will play hard.

The perfect example is Kobe and the Lakers last pre-season. Kobe clearly demanded time and time again they trade him, yet come game time he played hard and now has a winning team and is as happy as ever.

Lockstock you are missing the point of Kobe AND Phil's actions. It looks the same thing but is not.

Kobe and Phil used Kobe's i want to be traded coz my team mates suck attitude as a way of improving the team.

The idea was to throw the gauntlet down so that Phil could go to the team and say hey you guys Kobe does not think you are good enough to be on the same team as him. Why dont you show him that you are.

Yeah i'm sure that was it Kent, let me guess, that's what Kobe and Phil told you???

Yeah that is it Panther.
Do some research and let me know what you find.

Gibson was in town for 3 days as the sixers tried to recruit him but he turned them down.Does that mean the 36ers will also be investigated?

You would think that if these players were still under contract, the amount they are to be paid would have formed part of the original contract they signed and would see them through to the end of the contract. With the new owners offering less money, then that is a breach of contract. However, if the "unofficial" contract was above the salary cap and not the one reported to the NBL, then there is a problem. I think the club has got more to lose than the players because if the players fought it hard enough, they could use that information to implicate the Bullets. The Bullets should let them go, and start with a clean slate and build from there. After all, the sale of the club and the introduction of the new owners have changed the conditions under which these players signed whether it complied with NBL rules or not.

I think Gibson was a free agent.

gibson definately was not a free agent.
i don't think the bullets will dare burn their bridge over gibson talking to other clubs- AGAIN- when it was actively encouraged by management in interviews that all players be allowed to do this- not sure why you guys aren't hearing me say this? lol
they won't persecute gibbo seeing that although he spoke with other clubs, he re-signed with us.
it's moreso the players that CONTINUED to talk to other clubs AFTER a buyer was found and confirmed this, and then took that a step further and actually PUT PEN TO PAPER ELSEWHERE.
today's newspaper article says that chuck will make a decision today whether to fine the breakers and/or cj and boucher for knowlingly signing with them when they were still under contract.
interviews thus far with breakers management have indicated that they claim they 'didn't know' the pair were still contracted- yeah right.
everybody knew the proviso under which the players were leaving was because of the buyer shortage, and nothing else.
by all reports today, it seems the bullets are happy to let them go but want them to be accountable for their actions.
amazing what happens within a day up here in recent weeks- it's almost like the bold and the beautiful or something!

here's another short article from fox sports regarding it- no doubt we will have a fair bit more info up here in the coming hours and fallout in the coming days.
someone was saying we almost need a dedicated bullets channel up here to keep up with the daily goings-on and chopping and changing.
not far off the mark, actually!

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23621626-23769,00.html

everybody knew the proviso under which the players were leaving was because of the buyer shortage, and nothing else.

Not sure what you mean Isaac, please explain. I don't think NZ has broken any rules when you consider these 2 players belonged to no club at all until a new buyer was found. A new buyer was not inevitable, it was just a possibility. What was CJ & Boucher supposed to wait for, or any other player for that matter. It was already past the 2 weeks since Finals, the clubs were all actively seeking free agents and they were supposed to just wait there and make themselves available for a club that may have folded. Trying to keep them to the their contracts was only for the benefit of finding a new buyer because it was more attractive for them to buy a team with a package of top Australian players. It made no consideration at all for what might have become of the players if there was no sale.

"these 2 players belonged to no club at all until a new buyer was found."

whoops- way wrong!

what you're saying is the exact opposite of how the players apporached it.
please guys, check the easily accessible facts that are on brisbane related sites for interview, etc.
it's such a waste of time to speculate on things that are public fact and information..... *sigh*

EC said:

I think the club has got more to lose than the players because if the players fought it hard enough, they could use that information to implicate the Bullets.

You would think that if these players were still under contract, the amount they are to be paid would have formed part of the original contract they signed and would see them through to the end of the contract. With the new owners offering less money, then that is a breach of contract.

Oh God, where do you even start responding to such a uselessly vague post. What about with "What the hell are you talking about?!?"

I start by moving my pawn to Bishop six.

Duh, you forgot to post with your name in that last anonymous post...