Wouldn't you replace Knight and Redhage with 2 PFs?

Knight certainly. Not so certain with Redhage. His game was always inside-out.

And if Luke Walker (already signed) is upgraded to permanent for Knight, there'll be some $$ spare.

Genuine question Anon. I'm not saying it could/would happen, I was asking if anyone knew the rules, so I could try learn something.

To anon above: the OP is trying to become more knowledgeable, why laugh at him?

This is a hard one to answer because we don't know what needs to be placed into a contract to comply with NBL and FIBA regulations.

It also depends on what the parties (Cairns/Perth/Gliddon) wish to do/their intentions on this matter. If Cairns and Gliddon wished to mutually agree to end their contract, that makes life easier. If there needs to be an alteration of the contract to allow Perth to buy-out from Cairns, that's also a possibility.

Contracts can almost always be torn up or altered...the problem usually lies with contract validity being dependent on other agreements such as league regulations.

Of course, I don't think there is much practicality in all of this - Perth probably don't want Gliddon enough to explore any of this.

Contracts are generally more favourable to the player than the team. Gliddon's got a year to go on his contract but let's say he wanted out to sign with another NBL team I doubt the Taipans would hold him to it and refuse to let him leave. The last year of contracts are also commonly an option either player or team option which makes them even less rigid. They're more for player financial security.

In sports, clubs don't tend to use leverage - if a player wants out than it's unlikely a club will want to force a player who doesn't want to be there to stay.

That is what made Carlton's Gibbs situation so unexpected - everyone assumed the moment Gibbs said he wanted out that Carlton would do what was necessary to move him on. I guess the unique aspect of that situation was the length of the contract and banking on the idea that he can be convinced to stay past his contract.

AFL clubs will almost always hold a player to his contract. That's because players are difficult to replace and only become free-agents under special circumstances, hence they have intrinsic value.

There is no such thing as trading in the NBL.
However teams and players could come to an agreement.

In terms of a player's existing contract, there are four broad areas that need to be considered:

1) The common law contract, which within limits, can say almost anything you want to agree to. (However it is an interesting bit of trivia to not that the AFL system which binds a player to a club even after their contract expires is completely and unquestionably unlawful and unenforceable.)

2) Fair work and other employment law. As a general rule this might specify such things as an employees right to give notice and terminate.

3) FIBA/ NBL rules which would cover such things as clearances.

4) Australian Trade practices Law.

So if Gliddon or Player X wants to leave, whilst under contract, it probably goes something like this:

1) He has a contract which specifies he must play for say 3 years, and potentially includes clauses for buy-out, NBA, and Euro outs.
2) But under Fair Work law he can probably resign giving reasonable notice.
3) FIBA & the NBL might frown on this and his existing club would be within their FIBA right to withhold a clearance.
4) HOWEVER that is completely illegal in Australia. It is restraint of trade and specifically outlawed by the C&C legislation.

Blanchfield to Taipans...

Contracts are not traded in the NBL.

If a player wanted to make a move and break their contract, the team would be hard pressed to keep them. The player could just threaten to play poorly if it came to that. Clubs would be aware of that, and most players would never stoop to that. However, without really good reason (returning to play near family or sick relative, partner taking a job interstate, etc) word would spread and it would be a bad mark on the player. How impactful that mark is is a different issue. Bruton "going to Europe" is a classic case.

If a club wants to break a contract, they either pay it out or offer to part-pay it (given the player could still achieve employment for that period) and assume the player won't create legal trouble for them. There is also a situation where they will pay the difference between the original contract and whatever replacement deal the player might be able to get (or the best offer they received).

Many clubs are very keen to be seen as favoured employers so seem to be doing more to make sure that cut players are looked after. Breakers are one example. I think Sydney let Djeric go chasing his Euro dream. That sort of stuff.

I'm glad he's getting something. He must have been mad as a cut snake when that happened.