- Aug 27, 2008
- 3,024
- 4,541
Really? I always thought Khan-Pereira created a threat, I rated him
2026 NRL General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter bb_gun
- Start date
- Jul 28, 2016
- 35,576
- 52,029
NRL talking big in regards to R360.
www.nrl.com
Unrecognised Football Competitions – Prohibitions and Sanctions
The Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) has released the following statement on Unrecognised Football Competitions – Prohibitions and Sanctions.
www.nrl.com
- Jul 28, 2016
- 35,576
- 52,029
Not sure how it would hold up legally, but in terms of registering a contract that's probably within the rights of the NRL.
It also uses the terms of unrecognised... so that probably means that if R360 becomes "recognised" then it's fine for the players to go there... not sure what defines "recognised" though.
Probably the point where they've vultured too many players that it becomes too much of a risk to NRL to keep any returning players out
It also uses the terms of unrecognised... so that probably means that if R360 becomes "recognised" then it's fine for the players to go there... not sure what defines "recognised" though.
Probably the point where they've vultured too many players that it becomes too much of a risk to NRL to keep any returning players out
- Mar 4, 2008
- 38,236
- 48,924
true ... but there is no law saying that the NRL have to employ them either
- Mar 26, 2008
- 9,701
- 10,178
Is the club the employer or the NRL? Club I would have thought.
Can't see how this is legal TBH.
I would say Vlandys has thrown out the threat and worry about if it could hold up in court later.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 38,236
- 48,924
The NRL reportedly got legal advice ... which i suspect is why it took them so long to comment.
while the club is technically the employer, they have to employ based on the terms of their licencing agreement with the NRL, which gives the NRL the final say on whether a contract is registered. BTW, there is already restraints on a clubs ability to employ players ... it's called a salary cap.
and finally the clubs are in agreement on this, and i don't see any of them challenging it in court
- Jan 25, 2013
- 26,878
- 33,643
Kind of similar to a non-compete clause, which is very common.
- Mar 26, 2008
- 9,701
- 10,178
Sure so if Haas goes to 360 for 2 years then wants to come back to the Roosters you think the Roosters won't challenge in court.
I dont think it will get that far because 360 will fade out but it's a restraint of trade IMO especially if it's not explicitly referenced in contracts.
I dont think it will get that far because 360 will fade out but it's a restraint of trade IMO especially if it's not explicitly referenced in contracts.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 38,236
- 48,924
so is a salary cap ... yet it still remains in place unchallenged after nearly 4 decades.
Run by a recognised governing body. Players can still go to AFL or ARU but you can’t just take the piss and run off to R360.
Contracts are registered by the NRL. They’re not legally obligated to let you play in their competition.
Midean
State of Origin Captain
- Jun 5, 2019
- 9,225
- 15,767
There is laws against discrimination though, and not hiring someone based on their choice to work elsewhere is discrimination.
It's a slippery slope when an employer can hold you hostage if you even dare to speak to another employer.
Id be very interested to see the policy's they are following by announcing this 10 year ban threat.
Midean
State of Origin Captain
- Jun 5, 2019
- 9,225
- 15,767
Correct, but they are also bound by workplace law, and you cannot refuse fair employment based on arbitrary conditions.
If I worked as a Baker at Coles, and went to woolworths to bake for a few years, Coles cannot refuse my employment if I decide to come back based on the fact I worked with a competitor.
There are loopholes obviously, Coles could just say I am not the right candidate for the job, or they found someone more experienced, but the nrl have shot themselves in the foot by publicly announcing this 10 year ban threat for seeking employment from a competitor.
I am also a bit confused on this talk around what exactly is a recognised governing body.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 38,236
- 48,924
That's not a protected class.
Those laws protect people against discrimination based on Gender, race, sexual preferences and religious beliefs etc ...
So unless the NRL chooses not to register a contract for one those reasons they'll be fine.
The discrimination laws don't protect people from their preferred work place just not liking them
Midean
State of Origin Captain
- Jun 5, 2019
- 9,225
- 15,767
Good point. My guess is the NRL is using non-compete law to enforce this, but its still a slippery slope.
- Reasonableness: Courts generally consider post-employment restraints like non-compete clauses to be void unless they are proven to be reasonable and necessary to protect a legitimate business interest.
Legitimate interest: A clause is more likely to be enforceable if it protects specific, legitimate interests like confidential business plans or client strategies, and isn't just intended to block competition or penalize an employee for leaving.
Enforcement difficulties: Courts are less likely to uphold a non-compete clause if the employee only has general industry knowledge rather than access to confidential information.
A- Reasonableness: Courts generally consider post-employment restraints like non-compete clauses to be void unless they are proven to be reasonable and necessary to protect a legitimate business interest.
Legitimate interest: A clause is more likely to be enforceable if it protects specific, legitimate interests like confidential business plans or client strategies, and isn't just intended to block competition or penalize an employee for leaving.
Enforcement difficulties: Courts are less likely to uphold a non-compete clause if the employee only has general industry knowledge rather than access to confidential information. - Reasonableness: Courts generally consider post-employment restraints like non-compete clauses to be void unless they are proven to be reasonable and necessary to protect a legitimate business interest.
Legitimate interest: A clause is more likely to be enforceable if it protects specific, legitimate interests like confidential business plans or client strategies, and isn't just intended to block competition or penalize an employee for leaving.
Enforcement difficulties: Courts are less likely to uphold a non-compete clause if the employee only has general industry knowledge rather than access to confidential information. - Reasonableness: Courts generally consider post-employment restraints like non-compete clauses to be void unless they are proven to be reasonable and necessary to protect a legitimate business interest.
Legitimate interest: A clause is more likely to be enforceable if it protects specific, legitimate interests like confidential business plans or client strategies, and isn't just intended to block competition or penalize an employee for leaving.
Enforcement difficulties: Courts are less likely to uphold a non-compete clause if the employee only has general industry knowledge rather than access to confidential information.
