Isaiah Papali’i #265

CloudyGlock said:
This is not correct. It is not the same as Madge, not can anyone just "buy the Contract".

The form of the Contract specifies the Consideration under the Contract. That is, what each party will provide and what each party will receive.

In the case of Madges contract, Madges Consideration is his time and knowledge that he will provide in training and coaching over the span of 3 years and the Clubs consideration is $$$$$. When the club terminated Madges Contract they completely paid their consideration to Madge.....paid him all of the $$$. Madge cant provide his consideration up front, his is time based.

In the case of Papalii, Papalii's consideration is training and playing with us for 3 years and the clubs is cash. If Papalii turns up tomorrow with $1.8M, the Club does not have to let him go, because in the Contract the consideration they are Contracted to receive is not $$$ its IP's time and labour. The club are within their rights to expect their Consideration as stated in the Contract and its not $$$.
Click to expand...
an overcomplicated answer and lawyer like and misses both points completely. I assume you have read the contracts and were party to the madge negotiations lee?
 
CloudyGlock said:
This is not correct. It is not the same as Madge, not can anyone just "buy the Contract".

The form of the Contract specifies the Consideration under the Contract. That is, what each party will provide and what each party will receive.

In the case of Madges contract, Madges Consideration is his time and knowledge that he will provide in training and coaching over the span of 3 years and the Clubs consideration is $$$$$. When the club terminated Madges Contract they completely paid their consideration to Madge.....paid him all of the $$$. Madge cant provide his consideration up front, his is time based.

In the case of Papalii, Papalii's consideration is training and playing with us for 3 years and the clubs is cash. If Papalii turns up tomorrow with $1.8M, the Club does not have to let him go, because in the Contract the consideration they are Contracted to receive is not $$$ its IP's time and labour. The club are within their rights to expect their Consideration as stated in the Contract and its not $$$.
Click to expand...
You’re partially correct cloudy, particularly your view on “considerations.”
I think you’ll find that if one party fails to deliver on their consideration and an application is made to the NRL to quash the contract, there is a very good chance it will be deregistered, on the grounds of forcing a player to discontinue an occupation he is reasonably suited to by his education training or experience.
They are sometimes referred to as “cattle” but are humans.
 
twentyforty said:
You’re partially correct cloudy, particularly your view on “considerations.”
I think you’ll find that if one party fails to deliver on their consideration and an application is made to the NRL to quash the contract, there is a very good chance it will be deregistered, on the grounds of forcing a player to discontinue an occupation he is reasonably suited to by his education training or experience.
They are sometimes referred to as “cattle” but are humans.
Click to expand...

He could go to England I presume we can't do anything
 
Westsboi2019 said:
Really hope Benji takes the job. Not only the experience but he could also get in the ears of some players...
Click to expand...
Yes I would like to see that happen but I think he will pass so he can get all in on the Tigers preseason IMO. He already stopped his media stuff to start early so doing this would be a challenge
 
What gets me is the lack of media around the fact that Kikaus and Mahoneys contracts still aren't shown as registered by the NRL - neither player is showing as a gain for the dogs or as a loss form penriff and pawwa. You would think the circle (360 or is it circus ) would be asking some serious questions as to how dogs are going to shed enough players to get these 2 and still have a top 30 list of players. Obviously they are too scared to take on Gus.
 
diedpretty said:
What gets me is the lack of media around the fact that Kikaus and Mahoneys contracts still aren't shown as registered by the NRL - neither player is showing as a gain for the dogs or as a loss form penriff and pawwa. You would think the circle (360 or is it circus ) would be asking some serious questions as to how dogs are going to shed enough players to get these 2 and still have a top 30 list of players. Obviously they are too scared to take on Gus.
Click to expand...
That’s a story in the bank, long summer.
 
The SHADOW said:
That’s a story in the bank, long summer.
Click to expand...
NRL 360 summer time edition

The truth will come out with SkHoops and Renty. Rehashing up nice blends, the high and lows , the better rub of the green, what grass does your ground have and Braithwaite sings horses.
 
Mighty_Tiger said:
100% this. If they don’t ask the question it’s a non topic for some tonight.

They don’t ask this of other players because it’s clear an agenda is on us atm big time at Fox.
Click to expand...
It's a continuation of the Knights' attempts to get Brooks which resulted in Sheens twice commenting that is isn't on. The difference is on this forum some believe this is fine because it is Brooks, but when it is Papali'i' it is different. It is unacceptable in both cases
 
Last edited:
diedpretty said:
What gets me is the lack of media around the fact that Kikaus and Mahoneys contracts still aren't shown as registered by the NRL - neither player is showing as a gain for the dogs or as a loss form penriff and pawwa. You would think the circle (360 or is it circus ) would be asking some serious questions as to how dogs are going to shed enough players to get these 2 and still have a top 30 list of players. Obviously they are too scared to take on Gus.
Click to expand...
Stockpiling of talent used to be a description used in the media. Sign up everyone you want and then try and release players you think are less of a priority to make room. Why doesn't the NRL address this issue? The cap bites but the methods of circumventing it precludes all clubs from gaining access to this talent.
 
pawsandclaws1 said:
Stockpiling of talent used to be a description used in the media. Sign up everyone you want and then try and release players you think are less of a priority to make room. Why doesn't the NRL address this issue? The cap bites but the methods of circumventing it precludes all clubs from gaining access to this talent.
Click to expand...
Nothing stopping us going after Mahoney or Kikau is there?
 
pawsandclaws1 said:
It's a continuation of the Knights' attempts to get Brooks which resulted in Sheens twice commenting that is isn't on. The difference is on this forum some believe this is fine because it is Brooks, but when it is Papali'i' it is different. It is unacceptable in both cases
Click to expand...

Agree. The Brooks / Knights stuff is fluff as well.
I doubt Brooks actually walked up and requested on multiple times to be moved on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 955 (members: 6, guests: 949)
Back
Top