1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Will Hopoate saga haunting the Parramatta Eels

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by tookey, Feb 21, 2016.

  1. tookey

    tookey Well-Known Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

    6,241
    1,638
    Ratings:
    +5,196 /159
    Go Will A massive payout to be included in parra's salary cap would fix parra's season. They might have to release their $1.3m half back

    WILL Hopoate has moved on from Parramatta — but the Canterbury recruit could be coming back to bite his old club very soon.

    That was the direct warning from Hopoate’s barrister Julieanne Levick as Parramatta potentially stared down the barrel of a massive payout to Hopoate and his legal team.

    The contract dispute is due back in the Supreme Court this week and it has the potential to cost the Eels millions of dollars.

    The outcome could also have further dire consequences for Parramatta because any payout to Hopoate is likely to be added to the Eels’ salary cap.

    That could effectively force the club to shed players to meet its salary cap commitments.

    “There will be a payout, there is no question about that,” Levick said.

    [​IMG]
    “There is no avoiding that, the question is one of quantum.”

    Will Hopoate has linked with Canterbury this season to play under his old Manly coach Des Hasler.

    With the Eels already fighting to show the NRL why they should not be docked four competition points before the start of the season because of previous salary cap breaches, Hopoate is also chasing money relating to a three-year, $2 million-plus offer that was signed by Hopoate and returned to the club.

    But because a subsequent NRL playing contract, also signed by Hopoate, was never lodged with the NRL, Parramatta’s defence has claimed that it did not constitute a “binding contractual agreement”.

    Hopoate has linked with Canterbury this season to play under his old Manly coach Des Hasler, but Levick said Hopoate would not back away from his fight with Parramatta.

    While it is unlikely the matter will be settled before the start of the new season — which kicks off when the Eels host the Broncos on Thursday week — Levick was adamant Hopoate would win his case.

    “Will is out of pocket because he has had to settle for something significantly less late in the piece with the Bulldogs,” Levick said.

    “Des is a wonderful coach and he has brought out the best in Will before and he will do it again, that’s for certain.

    “(But) there is a process to be followed in the Supreme Court. The matter is now in the hands of the Supreme Court and that process must be respected.

    “Justice needs to be seen to be done for Will Hopoate. A line needs to be drawn in the sand with Will. He has integrity and should be respected.”

    Levick also acted on behalf of the players’ union for Robbie Farah in his dispute with the Wests Tigers, and she said this would be a test case for all players and clubs.

    “Players have been reluctant to stand their ground and fight for their rights,” Levick said.

    “Those days are gone. In the past players have just moved onto another club if there is a change to their contractual arrangement.

    “They haven’t bothered to challenge a promise.”
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s/news-story/e79e2855405b4002f01d669c8ab0808e
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • Vyssini

      Vyssini Well-Known Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

      587
      275
      Ratings:
      +581 /3
      You would imagine the least the idiots at NRL Central would do is assess the difference in the contract Hopoate had signed at the Squeels with what he is getting at the boodogs, and include this in the squeels salary cap for the length of time it is paid out.
      In a funny way, I hope Ha$ler signed him for no more than $250k per season...
       
      • Like Like x 1
      • Agree Agree x 1
      • manlyfan76

        manlyfan76 Parra Trolls are the best. Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

        9,723
        2,750
        Ratings:
        +7,113 /151
        Will could be about to fry the eels this season.
        I'm sure will can and will the court case but I'll be interested in how the NRL punish Parra.
         
      • Berkeley_Eagle

        Berkeley_Eagle Current Status: 24/7 Manly Fan

        16,043
        1,851
        Ratings:
        +2,125 /14
        Julieanne Levick

        There's that name again
         
        • Agree Agree x 1
        • Loobs

          Loobs I am not really Scott Penn Premium Member

          6,620
          2,173
          Ratings:
          +8,116 /287
          She's the Hoppa's Johnny Cochran
           
          • Like Like x 1
          • HappilyManly

            HappilyManly MWTS Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

            17,110
            6,826
            Ratings:
            +15,443 /324
            Another money grab attempt by lawyers.

            I don't see how the Supreme Court can rule in his favour, as the NRL is on record as refusing to register inumerable contracts based on their dollar value pushing a Club over the Cap. @:rolleyes:

            Will is not alone here. Parra can use Izzy as a precedent.
             
            • Like Like x 1
            • Informative Informative x 1
            • SeaEagleRock8

              SeaEagleRock8 Sea Eagle Lach Staff Member Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

              13,954
              3,909
              Ratings:
              +9,124 /179
              Totally different scenario HM. Folau probably suffered no loss.
               
              • Agree Agree x 1
              • globaleagle

                globaleagle Deux bourbons s'il vous plait Staff Member Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

                13,859
                5,570
                Ratings:
                +11,188 /92
                Parra should really just sit out this season.
                 
                • Funny Funny x 3
                • Like Like x 1
                • Agree Agree x 1
                • Winner Winner x 1
                • HappilyManly

                  HappilyManly MWTS Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

                  17,110
                  6,826
                  Ratings:
                  +15,443 /324
                  Pretty sure that the Warratah's contract was way below any NRL one.

                  But it's irrelevant as the 'learned' ones will debate it at great expense to ???
                  Hoppa must be loaded to instigate so many legal actions :nerd:
                   
                • tookey

                  tookey Well-Known Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

                  6,241
                  1,638
                  Ratings:
                  +5,196 /159
                  Wasn't it reported recently that the dogs were paying part of hopoate's legal fees against parramatta?
                   
                  • Informative Informative x 1
                  • manlywarringah

                    manlywarringah Well-Known Member Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

                    884
                    326
                    Ratings:
                    +1,074 /31
                    I seriously hope this is found in Hoppa's favour. Not only do they have to include his money in their cap and probably pay whatever difference to Hoppa but it would be even better if they are then to pay all legal costs.

                    This could cost them a fortune!

                    A very interesting scenario considering Hoppa had agreed and signed the offer parra put to him.

                    If it's found in parra's favour, I wonder how many clubs can pull out in similar circumstances.

                    Remembering that our owners would NOT acknowledge DCE's contract from our previous CEO as they hadn't sighted the offer. It seems they may have been legally bound to uphold that offer if he had signed a contract. I'm not sure on that point but the future of NRL contracts could be hinging on this decision.
                     
                  • Rex

                    Rex Well-Known Member

                    Ratings:
                    +2,340 /60
                    It'll be interesting to see what the Supreme Court rules. If I signed a lucrative contract with a construction company and then their plans, for whatever reason, fell over (maybe the authority rejects their proposal) wouldn't I have the right to be paid out? And to sue for losses incurred - loss of other opportunities, etc?

                    If they ruled in Parra's favour, then there'll be a lot of nervous players and player managers. How would they even know for example, if the club was over the cap? Or if the club was holding onto the contract rather than submitting it to the NRL?

                    If the Supreme Court rules in lil Hoppa's favour, to control their exposures, maybe the clubs would get NRL approval before signing new contracts.
                     
                    • Like Like x 1
                    • The Who

                      The Who Well-Known Member

                      7,933
                      2,396
                      Ratings:
                      +6,128 /133
                      Regardless of what monetary penalty is given I'll bet the NRL doesn't have the 'nads to dock Doesn'tmatta four competition points for systematic rorting.
                      Talk is cheap. And you couldn't get anyone cheaper than Greenturd.
                       
                      • Agree Agree x 7
                      • Winner Winner x 1
                      • Pittwater Legend

                        Pittwater Legend Well-Known Member

                        Ratings:
                        +1,004 /31
                        Agreed. They should sit out this season and begin preparing now for 2017.
                         
                      • Rex

                        Rex Well-Known Member

                        Ratings:
                        +2,340 /60
                        Give time for Foz's hammy to mend
                         
                      • HappilyManly

                        HappilyManly MWTS Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

                        17,110
                        6,826
                        Ratings:
                        +15,443 /324
                        Wrong analogy as contracts are not binding till the NRL registers them.
                        Everybody is aware of this fact, except Hopa's Manager it seems. :wondering:

                        Maybe Hoppa has a binding agreement with his TPAs that they can go after.
                        After all, they are meant to be independent of the Clubs :nod:
                         
                      • mjb136

                        mjb136 MWSE fanatic Premium Member

                        Ratings:
                        +1,530 /34
                        They would not be pursuing a breach of contract qith6out cause. Clearly there is case as it would have been thrown out by now.
                         
                      • Essex Eagle

                        Essex Eagle Member

                        62
                        26
                        Ratings:
                        +58 /2
                        For a validly formed contract there must be five elements (I wouldn't include the sixth being capacity to be honest in this scenario):

                        1. Offer
                        2. Acceptance
                        3. Consideration - something must be given in return, in this case $ for time
                        4. Intention - did the parra board act in a way which it could be perceived they had an intention to proceed with the contract. I would suspect that they did by getting him to sign
                        5. Certainty - sufficient certainty to show that parties' rights and obligations can be identified and enforced

                        For Parra to demonstrate that the contract is not valid they will have to disprove one the above. It will most likely come down to the wording of the contract, even potentially down to the words 'subject to'.

                        On the face of it it would seem difficult for Parra to do this however contract law is complex with precedents going well back in time, sometimes as far back as English cases.

                        Will actually be very interesting to watch this in the Supreme court. Does anyone know the date that it is listed for?
                         
                        • Informative Informative x 3
                        • Rex

                          Rex Well-Known Member

                          Ratings:
                          +2,340 /60
                          Not binding until the NRL registers them? I'm not aware of that fact. So it must be almost everyone is aware of that condition then.

                          I thought they're binding, just not registered, until the NRL register them. And I would have thought if NRL registration was a condition of the contract becoming binding that this would need to be spelled out unambiguously and clearly within the contract. Then there could be no dispute. If there is a dispute about this, I'd expect Parra's case in making this claim is very weak.

                          And I assumed that Parra's main claim was that their CEO didn't have authority to bind the club into that contract. And I would have thought that argument is very weak as well. After all, he's the CEO.

                          But then, the law is an ass, so anything is possible. My very basic understanding is a contract requires offer, acceptance and consideration. Perhaps players should be require a $1 payment upon signing.
                           
                          • Agree Agree x 1
                          • TWO DOGS

                            TWO DOGS Well-Known Member Premium Member 2017 Tipping Competitor

                            735
                            280
                            Ratings:
                            +489 /2
                            More like the Hoppa's Jackie Chiles.
                             
                            • Funny Funny x 3

                            Share This Page