I think in this thread and others there was some consternation around contracts and their validity.
The problem is that currently the NRL and Clubs do not have to honour contacts due to a clause which is in all contracts - Mutual Dissolution. Basically means if both parties can negotiate a mutually beneficial exit/solution then the contract can be voided or cancelled.
So, easy fix is to change the NRL contract to delete the Mutual Dissolution Clause and therefore the player is bound to the club for the entirety of said contract, regardless of any fallout, dummy spit, being poach for future seasons etc.
Wont happen because as much as we bleat about player loyalty, the clubs also want to have the "option" of moving a player on if a positive business opportunity presents itself.
So, put up with the contracts not meaning to much at all at the end of the day.
No that wouldnt work. Courts would never force a person to provide services to another person if the parties are happy to part ways.
Contract law doesnt work the way you suggest.
There is no reason for a change. The system works fine. As disappointing as it when a player leaves mid season it is still up to the club to release the player. The club doesnt have to.
In this case, of we release him we obviously consider Moses present value isnt worth the space he would take up in the cap this year. That is, we see his value in the future but have always been prepared to pay him overs for the future return.
The system aint broke as annyoing it can feel at times.