NRL to Discuss New Rule re Breaking Contracts

[hank37w]

Recent cases involving winger Jason Saab and props Addin Fonua-Blake and Josh Aloiai highlight the need for a framework, which has seen clubs raid each other’s rosters while losing players themselves in similar circumstances.

Funny how all 3 cited examples involve that scum Manly.
Kick 'em out!

 

[twentyforty]

Can you still back end contracts?

Not to the outrageous amounts of the past...You can't pay say 200K year 1 and 600K year 2...you can go 350K year 1 450K year 2..net result is 800K over the 2 years...

Clubs now try and even out the cap but build in bonuses should certain levels be met..

With that in mind, looking forward to see this “huge” deal awaiting Latrell Mitchell.

 

[Telltails]

Good to see them acknowledging the problem but expect some push back from the players union.

 

[the_third]

if that gets up, credit to Lee Hap for bringing it up

 

[the_third]

Can you still back end contracts?

Not to the outrageous amounts of the past...You can't pay say 200K year 1 and 600K year 2...you can go 350K year 1 450K year 2..net result is 800K over the 2 years...

Clubs now try and even out the cap but build in bonuses should certain levels be met..

Im no expert on cap rules, but thought the cap included maximum bonus amounts.

ie you get 100K for playing SSO, its included in the cap even if you don't make the cut

is that correct?

 

[Nelson]

They need some specifications on this though. If a player is a regular first grader then yes these rules should apply. If there's a youngster who isn't getting a look in, like Blore for example, why shouldn't they be allowed to leave their club by mutual consent and get a slight payrise in the process?

Ultimately this will see a lot more 2 year deals being signed.

A transfer system like the NBA or NHL might be better. You can trade players (who can also have non trade clauses in their contracts) but the salary remains the same. But you can bundle a package of players to trade for one higher value asset. Players know that an acceptable trade needs to be agreed before they can move, otherwise they see out their contract and then move in free agency, and their club gets no compensation.

They don't make enough money to subject them to trades against their will, particularly given they could theoretically be traded to New Zealand.

 

[JD Tiger]

A good start. And I have a solution for how to deal with the players and players managers that come out against it, ignore them. If the RLPA don't like it, so what, dont ask them either.

Rugby League does not focus and depend on the players, all its money is through the fans. So yes, great to hear, if this goes ahead it won't fix eveything, but its a good start.

What I'd like to see also considered, is for them to go further. Invoke financial penalties to be incurred by players if they break a contract, say they are fined half their salary for that year and a full years salary for any years remaining. Clubs can't kick a player out if they don't want to go, (we would if we could) so don't let players do it.

The above fine is only if they go to another club. Say a player has genuine mental health concerns and wants 12 months off from the game, they negotiate that with the club, maybe with no fine because if genuine fair enough, but the fine is issued of they turn out for another club within the length of their contract.

 

[hobbo1]

Bust a deal ...face the wheel
@happy_tiger

 

[happy_tiger]

Bust a deal ...face the wheel
@happy_tiger

Your going down .....Happy wins

 

[TigerWest]

if that gets up, credit to Lee Hap for bringing it up

Yep, not as useless as some here think?

 

[Papacito]

In practice, anything like this is going to be to difficult to legally enforce.

As others have pointed out, it's doubtful that the RLPA will ever agree either.

While it drives fans and management mad, I'll never begrudge a bloke who is able to earn more and provide for his family by moving clubs in what is relatively speaking, a short and risky career path.

 

[TigerWest]

In practice, anything like this is going to be to difficult to legally enforce.

As others have pointed out, it's doubtful that the RLPA will ever agree either.

While it drives fans and management mad, I'll never begrudge a bloke who is able to earn more and provide for his family by moving clubs in what is relatively speaking, a short and risky career path.

I am no legal guy, but the club and the NRL are not begrudging anybody to earn more money (with in the rules) but my understanding is the players are being told you can break there contract (which I would have thought was illegal anyway) just to earn more money.

We will never know, but I wonder if JA (or Matterson) would have broken there contracts for no gain? Maybe it would force clubs to reconsider as well? Doubt it, but maybe.

 

[Papacito]

In practice, anything like this is going to be to difficult to legally enforce.

As others have pointed out, it's doubtful that the RLPA will ever agree either.

While it drives fans and management mad, I'll never begrudge a bloke who is able to earn more and provide for his family by moving clubs in what is relatively speaking, a short and risky career path.

I am no legal guy, but the club and the NRL are not begrudging anybody to earn more money (with in the rules) but my understanding is the players are being told you cannot break there contract (which I would have thought was illegal anyway) just to earn more money.

We will never know, but I wonder if JA (or Matterson) would have broken there contracts for no gain? Maybe it would force clubs to reconsider as well? Doubt it, but maybe.

Without getting into too much detail, I doubt a club would have a legal leg to stand on if, for instance, a rival comes in and offers a minimum wage bloke $400k per year but the club wants to enforce the original minimum wage contract.

 

[TigerWest]

In practice, anything like this is going to be to difficult to legally enforce.

As others have pointed out, it's doubtful that the RLPA will ever agree either.

While it drives fans and management mad, I'll never begrudge a bloke who is able to earn more and provide for his family by moving clubs in what is relatively speaking, a short and risky career path.

I am no legal guy, but the club and the NRL are not begrudging anybody to earn more money (with in the rules) but my understanding is the players are being told you cannot break there contract (which I would have thought was illegal anyway) just to earn more money.

We will never know, but I wonder if JA (or Matterson) would have broken there contracts for no gain? Maybe it would force clubs to reconsider as well? Doubt it, but maybe.

Without getting into too much detail, I doubt a club would have a legal leg to stand on if, for instance, a rival comes in and offers a minimum wage bloke $400k per year but the club wants to enforce the original minimum wage contract.

But the person is on a contract, are they not legally binding and would you not have a case against the other club for trying to coerce a player to break his current contract.

In your your example, what about the current clubs time, effort and money that has been put into the player, do they not count?

I don't begrudge any player chasing better money, but only when his current contract is finished.

 

[Papacito]

In practice, anything like this is going to be to difficult to legally enforce.

As others have pointed out, it's doubtful that the RLPA will ever agree either.

While it drives fans and management mad, I'll never begrudge a bloke who is able to earn more and provide for his family by moving clubs in what is relatively speaking, a short and risky career path.

I am no legal guy, but the club and the NRL are not begrudging anybody to earn more money (with in the rules) but my understanding is the players are being told you cannot break there contract (which I would have thought was illegal anyway) just to earn more money.

We will never know, but I wonder if JA (or Matterson) would have broken there contracts for no gain? Maybe it would force clubs to reconsider as well? Doubt it, but maybe.

Without getting into too much detail, I doubt a club would have a legal leg to stand on if, for instance, a rival comes in and offers a minimum wage bloke $400k per year but the club wants to enforce the original minimum wage contract.

But the person is on a contract, are not legally binding and would you not have a case against the other club for trying to coerce a player to break his current contract.

In your your example, what about the current clubs time, effort and money that has been put into the player, do they not count?

I don't begrudge any player chasing better money, but only when his current contract is finished.

They're all considerations that might come up If a case was taken to court.

My point is that the legal system looks beyond the "you signed a contract and have to stick by it" approach.

 

[TigerWest]

In practice, anything like this is going to be to difficult to legally enforce.

As others have pointed out, it's doubtful that the RLPA will ever agree either.

While it drives fans and management mad, I'll never begrudge a bloke who is able to earn more and provide for his family by moving clubs in what is relatively speaking, a short and risky career path.

I am no legal guy, but the club and the NRL are not begrudging anybody to earn more money (with in the rules) but my understanding is the players are being told you cannot break there contract (which I would have thought was illegal anyway) just to earn more money.

We will never know, but I wonder if JA (or Matterson) would have broken there contracts for no gain? Maybe it would force clubs to reconsider as well? Doubt it, but maybe.

Without getting into too much detail, I doubt a club would have a legal leg to stand on if, for instance, a rival comes in and offers a minimum wage bloke $400k per year but the club wants to enforce the original minimum wage contract.

But the person is on a contract, are not legally binding and would you not have a case against the other club for trying to coerce a player to break his current contract.

In your your example, what about the current clubs time, effort and money that has been put into the player, do they not count?

I don't begrudge any player chasing better money, but only when his current contract is finished.

They're all considerations that might come up If a case was taken to court.

My point is that the legal system looks beyond the "you signed a contract and have to stick by it" approach.

OK, then may as well not have them?

 

[Harvey]

In practice, anything like this is going to be to difficult to legally enforce.

As others have pointed out, it's doubtful that the RLPA will ever agree either.

While it drives fans and management mad, I'll never begrudge a bloke who is able to earn more and provide for his family by moving clubs in what is relatively speaking, a short and risky career path.

There is nothing preventing this, sign one year contract, Unfortunately this means that if you have a poor season, get injured or standouts appear in your position your value goes down.

I won't begrudge a bloke having the right to change employers when there is more money available there. As long as the employer has the right to terminate an under performing employee at a set severance rate.

 

[balmain boy]

Why does everyone think the rlpa will be against ensuring the legal validity of contracts? It works both ways. Sometimes players will be advantaged, sometimes temporarily disadvantaged. Signing Long term contracts can work out for players if they get injured, but if they exceed expectations then they're underpaid.

If players want to be free to do what they want they can risk one year deals and pray they don't get injured

 

[supercoach]

Even if you legislate against players being able to profit from getting a early release nothing will change, because there is a 100 and one ways to pay players outside the cap that the salary cap auditor can catch or prove. Call it clever or what ever but certain clubs have been doing it for years and will continue to do so.

Although I guess any legislation within the games rules that make it a tad harder for some clubs who flaunt the rules can’t be a bad thing

 

[the_third]

So it looks like it’s going to happen. Do we think the RPLA will have a position that contracts should not be legally binding? It goes both ways, club and player. If players can break contracts then clubs should also be able to say no.

Imagine if we could tell packer and Josh, sorry you aren’t able to fulfil your contract because you can’t get a game in first grade.

No way the RLPA will agree to that so we will get some safety net thing for compassionate grounds.

We need proper safeguards against managers