StuBoot
Bencher
Exactly.
This is what ****s us over Greenturd's rulings.
His argument when dishing out punishment for cap rorting - ie: alleged third party's arranged by clubs - was that it creates an unfair advantage in that it helps clubs sign or retain a player that they necessarily wouldn't have.
Yet, he can't ( or doesn't want to ) see it with this medically retired stuff.
Exhibit 1 - Watmough
We knew Choc's knees were shot and offered him a two year extension ( pretty much out of goodwill ) - it was reported he wanted three.
Enter Parra offering him a 4 year deal, he agitated for a release, got it and didn't last two seasons at Parra, all in the midst of their salary cap saga. He was then cleared to "medically retire" two seasons early and Parra not take a cap hit.
My counter to that is Parra gained an unfair advantage by dangling the longer contract to lure Choc away when any half decent judge knew he couldn't possibly see out the four years.
To me the Burgess case is similar in that his incumbent club offered the longer deal to retain his services whilst effectively stymieing other clubs from potentially signing him on a shorter deal for more $$$.
I'm no rocket surgeon but if he's had an ongoing shoulder injury that requires repeated surgeries then whatever complications arose from any surgery should be deemed pre-existing.
The infection wouldn't have occurred if he didn't have surgery and the surgery wouldn't have been necessary if there was nothing wrong with the shoulder, yeah?
