Josh Aloiai, and membership discussions.

[Woodsie]

I was about to post the same thing. In a DT article, just after the lambasting of players wanting out of their contracts early, they mention the Tigers are shopping Packer around and might cut Garner loose with two years left on his contract.

Yeah, but both are still guaranteed to get as a minimum the full amount of their current contracts if another club picks them up ... and if no other club wants them they are still guaranteed to see out their full contracts at Tigers ..

 

[pjayz]

The difference here is that the players the Tigers want to cast off,Packer Reynolds etc are still guaranteed the money that’s on their contract even if they do leave

Yes, but that has nothing to do with why they want them gone. They want them gone for the financial / cap benefit it will deliver the club so they can spend that money elsewhere. It is a purely self-interested exercise, just as it is when a player wants out early. When a player seeks a release, the club has cap space opened up and it is up to them to use that to their advantage. Just as it is up to the club to create an environment and roster that players want to be a part of. The good clubs will upgrade existing contracts when players play above their current contract value in order to keep them wearing their jersey and keep things fair and reasonable.

 

[pjayz]

I can understand why the Tigers are digging their heals in here , however I also see their hypocrisy. i.e. happy to benefit from Addo Carr breaking his agreement with the storm but now apparently seeking contract reform from the NRL when one of their players wants out to earn more money elsewhere and do the same.

Exactly. The Tigers CEO said that players leaving on compassionate grounds shouldn't be paid more for the term remaining on their existing contract, yet they offer Addo-carr $600k which is significantly more than what he was on at the Storm. Addo-carr was said to be leaving on compassionate grounds as his family is in NSW. Total hypocrisy from the Tigers.

 

[Woodsie]

Exactly. The Tigers CEO said that players leaving on compassionate grounds shouldn't be paid more for the term remaining on their existing contract, yet they offer Addo-carr $600k which is significantly more than what he was on at the Storm. Addo-carr was said to be leaving on compassionate grounds as his family is in NSW. Total hypocrisy from the Tigers.

Josh Ado Carr was given permission to leave (given a like for like could be found) and negotiate with other clubs ... how much he signed for was just a part of normal commercial transaction and market forces when more than one club were competing for his signature... he didn't have an offer from another club first and then start agitating for a release ...

Whether or not the real reason he wanted out was more money is irrelevant to the case .. because it was done entirely differently and with Storms full knowledge and approval ..

 

[Brisbane Tragic]

Initially I was a little sympathetic to the Tigers plight but when you look a little deeper, it works both ways. Clubs discard unwanted players just as often as players want out. It goes both ways.

We just lost AFB and he wanted out so we made it happen for him. Aloiai wants out and the Tigers are treating the situation as if loyalty and honour only extend in one direction...it wasn't long ago they cut Corey Thompson loose when he had a deal. They've made it clear publicly that they want Reynolds gone...ditto Mbye. It's just that their recruitment is so bad that no one wanted their cast offs. If they are willing to play the game, they cannot cry foul when it doesn't benefit them.

In other words, a deal is only a deal when we want you to honour it.

Spot on Snake! Well said.

 

[The Indian]

I'll be sorry of Aloiai doesn't come cause think he's a decent replacement BUT I kind of admire the Wests Tigers board for not rolling over as easily as we did. That's the way to stop it.

 

[simon64]

The game has made a rod for its own back.

They allowed contracts to be meaningless.

And it's not just the players that are to blame. The clubs are just as culpable.

Can you imagine trying to get out of a real estate purchase after the cooling off period and with reason other than "I changed my mind." ?

Good luck with that. You'll be thousands out of pocket with no legal recourse.

 

[Blake A]

One of the stupidest things ive ever heard

So you can be a rookie on 100k but then have a year as good as Hayne 09 or Barba for the dogs, Chooks chuck 800k at you but nah you have a 3 year bottom dollar contract, which your capped at earning regardless of performance

1. It won’t encourage players to perform
- do you really think NRL players have the patience to wait out there contract regardless of performance? (No)

2. Union, SL etc will steal the gun players and the youth.
The reason why every good player comes to league is because the Waratahs go “you’ll be starting for us when your 23” whereas the bunnies, chooks etc all go “you can earn 500k+ two years out of high school”

Don’t sign a multi year deal then... I think it’s a good idea.

 

[Woodsie]

The difference is ...

When a player signs a contract with a club .. he is guaranteed by law to be paid the full amount of that contract for the full term of that contract .. provided he does nothing that contravenes the contract and would give cause to the club or the NRL tearing the contract up ..

When a club wishes to move a player on for whatever reason ... financial or cultural, they can say he is free to talk to other clubs, they can say that he is no longer in their plans and they can say he is unlikely to feature in 1st grade .. but all that is NOT an attempt to "break" the contract ... if the player wishes to stay or whether he leaves ... he is still entitled to the full payment of his contract for the full term of his contract .. it may hurt the players dignity .. but he is protected by law ..

But when a player demands to be released by a club that doesn't want to lose him .. for whatever reason .. financial, cultural or for compassionate grounds ... he IS attempting to break the contract and if he gives every indication of just kicking stones he is basically forcing the club into an untenable situation ... with little or no regard to the law or probity .. simply relying on the God of pragmatism to get his way ...

They are not the same thing ..

 

[Clint]

A draft would go a long way to solving the problem with both Saab and Aloiai I reckon. Fair enough that saints and tigers want something in return - a draft would help them achieve that via manly or other clubs trading selections for players.

AFL draft works wonderfully well. NRL needs a draft ASAP to stop this merry-go-round of players.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Can you imagine trying to get out of a real estate purchase after the cooling off period and with reason other than "I changed my mind." ?

Except a contract for purchasing property is quite different to a contract for personal services.
The courts will enforce one but often will not force people to work together if relationships have become untenable. Which is common sense.

Not to say there can't be financial consequences for a breach but in practice it comes down to a game of chicken and which side is better at brinkmanship.

Manly adopted a common sense attitude when Blake Green played hardball a few years ago, and also apparently with AFB. If Tigers want to keep an unhappy player in their squad good luck with that, there's a chance it could backfire in a big way. I'm sure they are just trying to pressure Manly into offering some cash or something.

 

[The Wheel]

AFL draft works wonderfully well. NRL needs a draft ASAP to stop this merry-go-round of players.

It does as it’s widely accepted by all in the game, For some reason it never has been challenged but I think technically it is a restraint of trade which wouldn’t stand up in court

 

[Snake]

I was about to post the same thing. In a DT article, just after the lambasting of players wanting out of their contracts early, they mention the Tigers are shopping Packer around and might cut Garner loose with two years left on his contract.

Haha laughable isn't it

 

[Ranga]

It does as it’s widely accepted by all in the game, For some reason it never has been challenged but I think technically it is a restraint of trade which wouldn’t stand up in court

I found this interesting @The Wheel - The AFL and Restraint of Trade - Sports Industry AU.

As the article says, "The default position of the Australian court system is defined in the precedent set forward in 1874 (Nordenfelt v Maximum – Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Limited) where restraints were found to be illegal unless reasonable and in the public interest." This case was cited in De Belin's court case against the NRL.

The author's view is that the AFL draft would likely withstand challenge, so the NRL just needs to structure a draft and trade system that is reasonable and in the public interest. Easy! lol

 

[Snake]

The difference is ...

When a player signs a contract with a club .. he is guaranteed by law to be paid the full amount of that contract for the full term of that contract .. provided he does nothing that contravenes the contract and would give cause to the club or the NRL tearing the contract up ..

When a club wishes to move a player on for whatever reason ... financial or cultural, they can say he is free to talk to other clubs, they can say that he is no longer in their plans and they can say he is unlikely to feature in 1st grade .. but all that is NOT an attempt to "break" the contract ... if the player wishes to stay or whether he leaves ... he is still entitled to the full payment of his contract for the full term of his contract .. it may hurt the players dignity .. but he is protected by law ..

But when a player demands to be released by a club that doesn't want to lose him .. for whatever reason .. financial, cultural or for compassionate grounds ... he IS attempting to break the contract and if he gives every indication of just kicking stones he is basically forcing the club into an untenable situation ... with little or no regard to the law or probity .. simply relying on the God of pragmatism to get his way ...

They are not the same thing ..

In theory what you are saying is correct but if you boil it all down, it's a case of the players looking after themselves and the club looking after themselves. Take Kyle Flanagan for example. He is gutted to be cut by the Chooks. He could stay and be paid next year but the Chooks basically said (a) we don't want you and (b) if you stay, everyone here is gonna pissed off at you for hanging around and taking up cap space. So the reality is the clubs ramrod the players when it suits them and usually get their way.

 

[Snake]

As far as the NRL putting a stop to this revolving door, they could simply police the rule that you can't sign elsewhere for more money when you are already under contract. If you are a junior whose value might sky rocket then don't sign a long term deal...simple.

The other aspect to consider is fans understanding that the days of players caring for the club are long gone. 90% of today's footballers are mercenaries for hire. They couldn't care less who they play for as long as they are on good coin and living somewhere their family is content with.

 

[Disco]

The difference is ...

When a player signs a contract with a club .. he is guaranteed by law to be paid the full amount of that contract for the full term of that contract .. provided he does nothing that contravenes the contract and would give cause to the club or the NRL tearing the contract up ..

When a club wishes to move a player on for whatever reason ... financial or cultural, they can say he is free to talk to other clubs, they can say that he is no longer in their plans and they can say he is unlikely to feature in 1st grade .. but all that is NOT an attempt to "break" the contract ... if the player wishes to stay or whether he leaves ... he is still entitled to the full payment of his contract for the full term of his contract .. it may hurt the players dignity .. but he is protected by law ..

But when a player demands to be released by a club that doesn't want to lose him .. for whatever reason .. financial, cultural or for compassionate grounds ... he IS attempting to break the contract and if he gives every indication of just kicking stones he is basically forcing the club into an untenable situation ... with little or no regard to the law or probity .. simply relying on the God of pragmatism to get his way ...

They are not the same thing ..

Hmmmm yes and no

A player kicking stones is indeed forcing a club into an untenable situation.

But a club like Penrith threatening Mansour with reserve grade is also putting him in an untenable situation where his future earning potential and indeed career is threatened.

I'm with you though that it is a ****e state of affairs.

 

[Red Pill]

The difference is ...

When a player signs a contract with a club .. he is guaranteed by law to be paid the full amount of that contract for the full term of that contract .. provided he does nothing that contravenes the contract and would give cause to the club or the NRL tearing the contract up ..

When a club wishes to move a player on for whatever reason ... financial or cultural, they can say he is free to talk to other clubs, they can say that he is no longer in their plans and they can say he is unlikely to feature in 1st grade .. but all that is NOT an attempt to "break" the contract ... if the player wishes to stay or whether he leaves ... he is still entitled to the full payment of his contract for the full term of his contract .. it may hurt the players dignity .. but he is protected by law ..

But when a player demands to be released by a club that doesn't want to lose him .. for whatever reason .. financial, cultural or for compassionate grounds ... he IS attempting to break the contract and if he gives every indication of just kicking stones he is basically forcing the club into an untenable situation ... with little or no regard to the law or probity .. simply relying on the God of pragmatism to get his way ...

They are not the same thing ..

Can not say clubs who tell contracted players they are likely not to be playing FG the next year unless it involves a mutually agreed form issue have much regard for probity either. The same applies to clubs happy to benefit ( like the tigers) from a player say like Addo Carr breaking their related contract with their respective club so they can join them earlier.
Not sure the warriors applied a strict probity policy when they approached Founa Blake either.

 

[simon64]

Except a contract for purchasing property is quite different to a contract for personal services.
The courts will enforce one but often will not force people to work together if relationships have become untenable. Which is common sense.

Not to say there can't be financial consequences for a breach but in practice it comes down to a game of chicken and which side is better at brinkmanship.

Manly adopted a common sense attitude when Blake Green played hardball a few years ago, and also apparently with AFB. If Tigers want to keep an unhappy player in their squad good luck with that, there's a chance it could backfire in a big way. I'm sure they are just trying to pressure Manly into offering some cash or something.

SER8....I supposed in the real estate scenario, you could always tell the agent you have to pull out because of eyesight problems.

"Eyesight problems ?"

Yeah. I just can't see myself living here anymore.....

 

[Eagle thru 'n' thru]

What if player "a" still has two years left on the contract he signed with team "b". Team "c" says "we want player "a", but team "b" says "No way get ******, **** off". Should the NRL introduce a system/rule that if player "a" breaks the contract with team "b" to join team "c", the player must see out the remaining time of the contract playing for team "c's" lower grade. Aloiai in this case would have to play for Blacktown Workers for two years before running out for Manly.
A rule like this would make players (and agents) think hard about bailing out on clubs and contracts.
I haven't given it much thought, just putting out there.