[Resurrected] Marty's rumoured wanderings thread

[Nice Beaver]

This is getting ridiculous - Cronk, Tedesco, Chricton, Hall, Morris and now Taupau? Surely not.

Yeah, but they lost Fergerson and their reserve half

Nothing to see here.....

Oh - you forgot Brock Lamb too.

The NRL is losing credibility and relevance at a rate of knots.

 

[XV-1]

It’s a long-running rumour that they keep going back to, but if it’s fact why has Manly publicly accepted Shaun Lane’s departure but not Taupau’s (or anyone else)? Probably because it’s not true. At least not yet.

Because Lane was out of contract and rejected our upgrade.

Marty is under contract - big difference

 

[Bearfax]

But...but....but.....Marty is contracted 'til 2020.

Sorry I forgot, it's an NRL contract.......

View attachment 9284

Link: https://www.zerotackle.com/rugby-league/players/martin-taupau/

A contract can be broken...always could be. But both sides have to agree. If Taupau signed with SC for next year while still on contract with Manly, the NRL would be obliged to refuse his right to do so. Same applies to the club breaking a contract with a player. They would be obliged to pay out the contract or face court proceedings. And as you will have noted they remain on the books of the club until the contract period expires, therefore occupying one of the 30 positions, even though he isn't paying with them. The only way a player or club can break the contract is if both parties come to an agreement, otherwise they would end up in court. Taupau and Walker are going no where unless Manly agrees to release them, and a mutually agreed settlement is made.

 

[pjayz]

Unless Manly have let Marty go, Blocker's claim is impossible and against league rules. Marty is on Manly's books until the end of the 2020 season.. SC cant even officially talk with him until November 2019. Mind you Blocker also has Walker going to Easts (that's the true name) next year also. IMPOSSIBLE, unless Politis has breached the TPA rules big time, the same rules in the process of being changed.

I agree; however, given another poster has heard the same thing from another source, maybe Manly have let Marty go. Who knows, I’m not going to get caught up in all the rumours any more - it’s just not worth it.

 

[Bearfax]

I agree; however, given another poster has heard the same thing from another source, maybe Manly have let Marty go. Who knows, I’m not going to get caught up in all the rumours any more - it’s just not worth it.

That's the only way it can happen if a mutually agreed arrangement was made. Otherwise the player would be banned from playing for SC and the matter would end up in court.

 

[Peninsula]

Because Lane was out of contract and rejected our upgrade.

Marty is under contract - big difference

Except that contracts are meaningless in the NRL.

 

[court83]

If he wants to go, he's gone. Period. Let him go. IF he wants too...
No club will keep a bloke on the books for 2 years if he doesn't want to be there.. It just doesn't happen.. I won't believe him or Walker are going anywhere until THEY say they want out... And IF that happens, let them go.. Why pay overs for 2 guys who don't want to play for you... Aslong as manly doesn't bend over and pay for them the next 2 seasons like the morons did for Myles, Ide rather see ppl here who WANT to be here...

 

[Bearfax]

Except that contracts are meaningless in the NRL.

No, they are far from being meaningless. The media descriptions are a distortion of the facts.

Its just that because of the salary cap and financial pressures, clubs and players have become more flexible about contract agreements. But a contract is still binding, unless both parties agree to break it with mutually agreed arrangements. A player cant just break a contract and play with another club the next year. The NRL are bound by contract law and must deny that player the right to play. Same with a club breaking a contract with a player. The player then has the right to demand full payment of their contract. If no agreement can be reached it will end in court, and courts wont look kindly at broken contracts if one party wants to enforce the contract conditions.

So contracts are just as solid as they have always been. Its just that clubs and players have chosen, usually for economic reasons, to come to an agreement to break the contract to both parties benefit.

 

[40 years an eagle]

He is not going anywhere if we want to keep him. Simple.

 

[Luke_m]

Manly would be VERY dumb to release both Marty and dylan but that's the reason why I think they will do it ! DUMB DUMB DUMB might as well pay for them to play for other clubs

 

[nightster]

If he wants to go, he's gone. Period. Let him go. IF he wants too...
No club will keep a bloke on the books for 2 years if he doesn't want to be there.. It just doesn't happen.. I won't believe him or Walker are going anywhere until THEY say they want out... And IF that happens, let them go.. Why pay overs for 2 guys who don't want to play for you... Aslong as manly doesn't bend over and pay for them the next 2 seasons like the morons did for Myles, Ide rather see ppl here who WANT to be here...

Bake Green for example

 

[40 years an eagle]

Manly would be VERY dumb to release both Marty and dylan but that's the reason why I think they will do it ! DUMB DUMB DUMB might as well pay for them to play for other clubs

For me, Marty has been one of our best week in, week out, is very good value for his contract dollars and it would be absurd to let him go.

Now Dylan, he gives away a stupid penalty every single week at possibly the worst time to do so, causes more problems than benefits with his gangsta attitude bullsh!t and is so far from being MANLY it's ridiculous. Would have rather we kept Ramian. Tom should take his spot and we buy Hoppa for FB. That is a MUCH better backline right there for no extra money.

 

[mave]

Bake Green for example

Well I prefer cookies, but I'm not too fussy tbh.

 

[40 years an eagle]

Bake Green for example

Green didn't want out, he wanted more money. Stupid of us in hindsight.

 

[nightster]

he wanted out because he was offered far more from the Once Weres than we could afford

 

[double hoops]

So we have a good idea who is off. What remains to be seen is who gets brought in.

I've just got this horrible feeling there is going to be two Cartwrights at Manly next year.

 

[joeboy]

If the place is so toxic that we lose an off contract tapau and walker, I reckon I'm done. How could we have got that bad ?

 

[40 years an eagle]

he wanted out because he was offered far more from the Once Weres than we could afford

Couldn't afford 600k? We offered dog boy 800k.

 

[40 years an eagle]

If the place is so toxic that we lose an off contract tapau and walker, I reckon I'm done. How could we have got that bad ?

Both are not off-contract.

 

[ALinda]

If the place is so toxic that we lose an off contract tapau and walker, I reckon I'm done. How could we have got that bad ?

They're both not off-contract - Taupau's contracted till 2020 and Walker till end 2019.

What would Blocker know? I'd take his word with a grain of salt

 

[joeboy]

Sorry was meant to say not off-contract or the even simpler, contracted!