king_sirro
Well-known member
@cunno said:
I think thats the tele just putting 2 and 2 together and getting 6\. But if they have heard it from the tigers, my guess is its a smokescreen so miller doesnt get any publicity in the off season
Moltzen Staying Or Going
- Thread starter Swordy
- Start date
I think thats the tele just putting 2 and 2 together and getting 6\. But if they have heard it from the tigers, my guess is its a smokescreen so miller doesnt get any publicity in the off season
Im not really giving away any secrets, but I spoke to a guy from saints and they are not going to back down, they want the contract enforced.
As for him not wanting to go to the club, the analogy he gave was a kid changing schools, they dont want ot go and leave their friends, but soon enough they make new friends and their is no dramas.
An issue id not really thought about, but if the saints contract is not ruled valid due to the lack of the release, then the practice of players not wanting a release from their current contract until the new contract is in place will in effect die, no club will operate under this arrangement in the future. How will the RPLA respond to this???
Im sure they can draft clauses around this, but it in effect could hurt players.
It is becoming an interesting employment law situation, Im not sure Ian Schubert is the man to decide on such matters.
I also think Tim is taking a risk, he is knocking back a pay rise that would put him in the top quartile of player payments (or near enough) and 3 years of security, by playing at the tigers at a reduced price, he is already financially worse off, I think the tigers are likely to be under salary cap pressure again next year, they may or may not be able to offer him money in the same ball park as he had already secured for a few years.
As for him not wanting to go to the club, the analogy he gave was a kid changing schools, they dont want ot go and leave their friends, but soon enough they make new friends and their is no dramas.
An issue id not really thought about, but if the saints contract is not ruled valid due to the lack of the release, then the practice of players not wanting a release from their current contract until the new contract is in place will in effect die, no club will operate under this arrangement in the future. How will the RPLA respond to this???
Im sure they can draft clauses around this, but it in effect could hurt players.
It is becoming an interesting employment law situation, Im not sure Ian Schubert is the man to decide on such matters.
I also think Tim is taking a risk, he is knocking back a pay rise that would put him in the top quartile of player payments (or near enough) and 3 years of security, by playing at the tigers at a reduced price, he is already financially worse off, I think the tigers are likely to be under salary cap pressure again next year, they may or may not be able to offer him money in the same ball park as he had already secured for a few years.
Tiger_Watto
New member
If Moltzen is ruled to be able to remain at the Tigers, could St George take legal action against Tim Moltzen and his Manager for misrepresentation?
tigersrule4life
New member
Hopefully we sign him long term his a gun player we so what he can do when his bak to full fitness go timmy moltzen tigers 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Mistadobalina
New member
are you drunk? I really hope so
@Tiger Watto said:
The Dragons were the ones who jumped the gun and announced it to the world before it was signed and sealed by all parties. They put all their eggs in one basket, and now someone has said that playing at the Dragons isn't the be all and end all.
Just get this over and done with. One way or the other so everybody can move on.
Joel Helmes
Well-known member
Perhaps there needs to be a major change in practices in these situations.
It makes more sense that an already contracted player would only sign a letter of intent rather than a second NRL contract.
Having a contracted player sign a second contract for the same time period is the problem here - it was just a matter of time before a situation liek this took place.
It makes more sense that an already contracted player would only sign a letter of intent rather than a second NRL contract.
Having a contracted player sign a second contract for the same time period is the problem here - it was just a matter of time before a situation liek this took place.
AndTheKungFoSing
New member
@LukeH said:
Not really, it sounds like his has literally signed two contracts…. Watto is right if this is the case.
Mistadobalina
New member
how come i'm never allowed to post anything?
@Tiger Watto said:
I doubt it. They seemed to believe the same thing Tauber and Moltzen did, i.e. that a release was possible/probable and acted accordingly. I would have thought they'd have to prove that Tauber and/or Moltzen knew that the release was an issue and acted in bad faith.
At the end of the day St George-Illawarra offered a contract to a player who didn't have a release so they are just as, if not more, culpable as the other two.
Tigersmurf
Well-known member
How is this different to Inglis at the Broncos, Turner at the Gold Coast, Lewis and Souths, Terry Hill and Wests…...this is not something new. The dragons should have ensured it was all done and dusted after Humphreys was critical of their timing of the announcement.
The common denominator is that none of the above players were forced to play where they did not want to. I think St George are naive to announce the signing before everything was set in stone. However we have not painted ourselves in a bright light by supporting this move publicly before it was finalised and before the board were consulted.
Messy stuff, but if he is still in a contract with no letter of release then I can only see one outcome...
The common denominator is that none of the above players were forced to play where they did not want to. I think St George are naive to announce the signing before everything was set in stone. However we have not painted ourselves in a bright light by supporting this move publicly before it was finalised and before the board were consulted.
Messy stuff, but if he is still in a contract with no letter of release then I can only see one outcome...
1_4_chicken_chips
New member
But Moltz was in poor form at the time he signed the Dragons contract,and Lui wasnt on an assault charge.
But i agree, if he wants to stay and i was the Dragons i wouldnt want a player who didnt want to play for my club.
But i agree, if he wants to stay and i was the Dragons i wouldnt want a player who didnt want to play for my club.
I don't think the NRL will consider Moltzen's form at the time he signed, what happened with Lui and how we could use Moltzen to cover Lui's (possible) sacking. Nor will they consider how the Dragons may not have an established #1 at their club next year.
All that the NRL will look at is the contracts that were signed and the emails, documented minutes of conversations referring to Moltzen between the clubs and what the three parties want - which is obviously both clubs wanting Moltzen and Moltzen wanting to stay - not both clubs sob story as to why they want him.
I think the NRL will be purely looking at the "official" matters of the issue.
If that's the case, I can only see one outcome - and that's Moltz staying at Concord next year.
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED
All that the NRL will look at is the contracts that were signed and the emails, documented minutes of conversations referring to Moltzen between the clubs and what the three parties want - which is obviously both clubs wanting Moltzen and Moltzen wanting to stay - not both clubs sob story as to why they want him.
I think the NRL will be purely looking at the "official" matters of the issue.
If that's the case, I can only see one outcome - and that's Moltz staying at Concord next year.
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@tiger91 said:
I think the NRL will do something unusual this time :roll
They will sit in the fence and say "the Tigers have the final contract which is registered but ethically and morally the Tigers should perhaps release Moltzen to the Saints'
Reason ; Because the NRL won't want to look at favouring 1 team over the other and can't be seen looking like the bad guy
And then it will go to court
Lets see if I'm right
happy_tiger
Well-known member
@tiger91 said:
The NRL will do something unusual in this situation and will sit on the fence :roll
Schubert will come out and say "The final contract that we have recieved is from the Tigers but morally and ethically the Tigers should release Moltzen to the Saints
Reason : The NRL doesn't want to look like the bad guy an won't want to be seen favouring either team
The it will go to court
Lets see if i am right
happy_tiger
Well-known member
Sorry posted twice I keep getting a message saying fatal error and that it hasn't been sent
Tiger_Watto
New member
The matter of where Moltzen will play in 2012 will not end up in court…. The NRL will probably work on some form of compensation much like the Steve Turner situation.
diedpretty
Well-known member
Humphreys should learn to keep hi mouth shut - he is now quoted as saying he will abide by the referees decision on this matter - if Schubert follows the ethical path rather than the legal path Moltzen will go to the whining sooks and because Humph says that he will agree the legal door will be closed unless he does another amazing triple backflip with pike.
