Will Hopoate saga haunting the Parramatta Eels

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
I get the feeling that if Hoppa has signed Parra contract and returned it to them then that is binding. Just because there is an issue with Parra and NRL is not Hoppas problem (?).

What is the chance (probably slim), Roosters boot Pearce and sign Foz. Pearce was on tender hooks earlier in the year, then the incident in USA (yet to be made public) and then the latest episode. They have grounds to rescind contract.

Oh interesting times.
 
Binding Contract, and NRL registered contract are two very different things.
Just because the contract was not registered with the NRL, does not make it non-binding. The NRL does not sit above the dictum of contract law.

Offer / Acceptance / Consideration.

The above has been satisfied.
 
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s/news-story/a3d88e176fa6b60775c4fa1b1d9c9c9d

Sounds like Hoppa signed a couple of contracts - much like Foran did :confused:

For a player who was paid for missionary work for teo years, he should let the Dalai off like Foran did :giggle:
Interested to find out what the two contracts are, but not interested (ever) to subscribe to DT. Any clues? Like a Cameron Smith two contract scenario? Or a DCE style, where the contract was upgraded to give a benefit of substance to the other party (for DCE he extended the term)?
 
Interested to find out what the two contracts are, but not interested (ever) to subscribe to DT. Any clues? Like a Cameron Smith two contract scenario? Or a DCE style, where the contract was upgraded to give a benefit of substance to the other party (for DCE he extended the term)?
Some Reporter will transcribe the Court hearings.
Great start to the year for Parra :giggle:
 
  • 🤝
Reactions: Rex
Guess if I ever take him/her off ignore, I'll find out! ;)

@steviewonder. Once young Hoppa finishes up with Des this year, he can come back home to take over from Snake or Lyons.

Between us & the Dogs coin, you'll have him for free until he retires. The Happy Hoppa family reunion.
 
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.

Interesting points @Rex .

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't a prudent clause to add in a Contract of Intent be, in layman's terms:

This agreement is subject to the approval of the NRL governing body & null & void in the case it is not approved &/or registered etc etc

It's unfathomable, defying all reason & sensibility that a club could guarantee player payments / contract that was not approved & registered by the NRL. To sit on the sidelines chewing salary cap, with the cheerleaders ?
 
Interesting points @Rex .

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't a prudent clause to add in a Contract of Intent be, in layman's terms:

This agreement is subject to the approval of the NRL governing body & null & void in the case it is not approved &/or registered etc etc

It's unfathomable, defying all reason & sensibility that a club could guarantee player payments / contract that was not approved & registered by the NRL. To sit on the sidelines chewing salary cap, with the cheerleaders ?
Yes, that would seem a prudent way of the club managing risks - if players and their managers accepted that clause. I wouldn't be too happy with it as a player manager. Maybe you should be in charge of drawing up the Parra contracts EE, because I'm doubting it was included. Why? If it was included the club would surely just come out and reveal that to put minds at rest. If it was included, Hoppa would not seem to have a case and you would be able to breathe out in comfort.

As to whether its unfathomable ... companies need to work in situations of uncertainty all the time. They back their judgement, and if their judgement is faulty, they pay the costs. One difficulty can be having people running footy clubs who are simply out of their depth - eg footballers or plumbers in management roles. I guess you hope their legal reps are appropriately consulted and are on the ball.
 
@Rex, it will be interesting to see the ripples of this. Post trial.

Levick & young William seem to believe this is stand for players rights. Personally, I feel there's a greater degree of opportunism here.

Either way, not sure, their logic works in the bigger scheme. It might have the opposite consequence , as would the road to hell, paved on good intentions.

In the end, how would burning the hand that feeds help those wanting to be fed ?
 
Last edited:
@Eelectric - Hoppa would be disappointed that the very lucrative contract he signed was not honoured. And he may have lost out significantly because other clubs moved on when he signed with Parra. Without certainty contracts lose their meaning. And the whole system can quickly fall down. The problem is not with Hoppa. It is with Parra signing, then reneging. That's how I see it at least. This reneging seems to be habitual at Parra. Foz went through the same thing.
 
Interesting points @Rex .

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't a prudent clause to add in a Contract of Intent be, in layman's terms:

This agreement is subject to the approval of the NRL governing body & null & void in the case it is not approved &/or registered etc etc

It's unfathomable, defying all reason & sensibility that a club could guarantee player payments / contract that was not approved & registered by the NRL. To sit on the sidelines chewing salary cap, with the cheerleaders ?

Because that would be deemed an unfair contract term. Hence, unenforceable as it ignores the premise of contract law.

The issue is Parramatta management, they offered, Will accepted. If parra seek to withdraw that contract, he is more than entitled to seek remedy for difference.
Performance (in reference to your cheerleading comment) is irrelevant and would only come into play if there was a verbal agreement as it constitutes an agreement crystallized through performance i.e. Will taking the field.

It is not opportunistic as you note, it is law.
 
Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
4 3 1 28 6
3 2 1 10 6
4 2 2 39 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom