2026 NRL General Discussion Thread

[Broncosarethebest]

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
• 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.
• if the employee only has general industry knowledge rather than access to confidential information.

Fair point.

With the way the super league war went, would that set some precedent in the courts? It was a while ago but surely it still stands as there hasn't been anything similar since?

 

[Foordy]

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.

The thing about all of that is that it is all related to trying to stop a former employee from working for a competitor ...

In this case the NRL is basically saying to their employees that they are free to go and work for their "competitor" but if they do they won't be re-hired.

They are very different scenarios

 

[Mustafur]

It will never work realistically if it's a big name player like Walsh or Cleary, but it's to put pressure on players for a competition that still doesn't exist yet.

They could make their money for a couple of years but if the comp folds they are definitely in a big net loss.

But i don't ever see a scenario where a player like walsh or cleary goes and the NRL doesn't let them come back so Vlandy's position is kina moot on that front.

That said I think Walsh looses alot of potential sponsorship opportunities leaving Australia so I don't see him ever leaving, Cleary on the other hand might be possible.

Imo I don't think the competition lasts long as Rugby has no popularity in Saudi arabia which is funding it, it's not like the Saudis with Soccer and Golf.

 

[BroncsFan]

Didn't they kind of do this when a team last tried to sign Folau?

What was the reasoning for not registering his contract last time?

They can also refuse to register a contract if they think it's too far below that player's value.

 

[Foordy]

Reports that the Titans could know within days whether Bellamy will coach them in 2027...

So in the unlikely event Bellamy risks his legacy by taking charge of the NRL's basket case club .... It would mean that Hannay effectively gets sacked before he even starts.

 

[Broncosarethebest]

Reports that the Titans could know within days whether Bellamy will coach them in 2027...

So in the unlikely event Bellamy risks his legacy by taking charge of the NRL's basket case club .... It would mean that Hannay effectively gets sacked before he even starts.

Cam Smith is at the goldie coaching under 10's (or something similar). Potential reunion?

 

[Mustafur]

Reports that the Titans could know within days whether Bellamy will coach them in 2027...

So in the unlikely event Bellamy risks his legacy by taking charge of the NRL's basket case club .... It would mean that Hannay effectively gets sacked before he even starts.

Just the next SEQ club to fall into bellyaches retirement trap.

 

[Dexter]

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.

Is that like the vibe? Taking the piss?
Pretty sure that's not a legal argument.

 

[Old Mate]

Didn't they kind of do this when a team last tried to sign Folau?

What was the reasoning for not registering his contract last time?

They can also refuse to register a contract if they think it's too far below that player's value.

I think it was the eels trying to sign him but they wanted 400k and th nrl wouldn’t register it because it was below market value or something?

 

[Super Freak]

The commission got legal advice before making their stance.

I would imagine the lawyers have told them something that supports their stance. Of course it doesn't mean it can't be challenged and it doesn't mean they will win, but I imagine they do have a leg to stand on here when it comes to banning players from coming back.

I do have to wonder if exceptions would be made, though. If a top line player like Haas or Munster or even Cleary goes over there for a few years, makes bank, and comes back will the NRL still have such a hard line stance or will an exception be made because of their standing in the game?

 

[1910]

Is that like the vibe? Taking the piss?
Pretty sure that's not a legal argument.

Governing bodies are pretty easy to identify, they run the sport in that country.

Competitions run by British Royals, who just sprouted some sort of idea at the Magic Millions don't run the sport.

 

[1910]

Didn't they kind of do this when a team last tried to sign Folau?

What was the reasoning for not registering his contract last time?

They can also refuse to register a contract if they think it's too far below that player's value.

ARLC said he fails the character test to play NRL.

 

[Dexter]

Governing bodies are pretty easy to identify, they run the sport in that country.

Competitions run by British Royals, who just sprouted some sort of idea at the Magic Millions don't run the sport.

Prob should have put meant as a joke.
I hope TVlandeys has a win here.
His legal advice at this point is just an opinion until it gets argued in court.
If it gets that far it will be R360 footing the bill not the players so any leverage re having to have deep pockets to fight the ban is not much of a threat.
I'm old enough to remember the rebel cricket tour of SA when players got lifetime bans.

That lasted 2 years.
Liv golf had an argument with the PGA . Liv golf is a thing.
Suoerlegue happened.
World series cricket happened..
It's not like this hasn't happened before and it's not like the R360 backers haven't thought through what push back would come from governing bodies and sort their own legal advice.
I think it's a crap idea doomed to failure and prob won't affect the NRL too much but R360 seem determined to have their argument.

 

[Foordy]

If it gets that far it will be R360 footing the bill not the players so any leverage re having to have deep pockets to fight the ban is not much of a threat.

Will R360 foot the bill though ... Because if it went to court it would be after the players left the R360 comp to try and return to the NRL.

I doubt the backers of R360 will fund legal challenges for players who have left their comp

 

[Kimlo]

There's no way that will hold up to a legal challenge.
NRL can get all the legal advice they want, most realistic scenario, is the lawyers told the NRL you can put up this statement and act tough publicly but if someone does challenge it, it won't hold up.

The NRL is bluffing and they'd know this won't hold up.

 

[BroncsFan]

November 1 deadline is looming... intent might be more about it being a delaying tactic.

It's expected that it wont hold up in court, but are managers and players wanting to wait around and find out.

Haas is off contract and has a 3yr $3m extension in front of him... does he sign that or does he hold out waiting for someone to challenge it in court.... and then also win in court (takes time).

He wont want to foot the bill to fight it.

I doubt the RLPA will foot the bill to fight it.

Which means it would have to be R360 and would have to be player managers pushing them to do it.

R360 might fight it, just because it's publicity and they know they can win it... but also allows them to sign NRL players... it seems like there hasn't been a lot of union players they can vulture.

In saying that the comp isnt really off the ground as yet... are US investors going to foot the bill for legal battles straight off the bat... and just so they can sign guys from a comp on the east coast of Australia.

 

[Dexter]

Will R360 foot the bill though ... Because if it went to court it would be after the players left the R360 comp to try and return to the NRL.

I doubt the backers of R360 will fund legal challenges for players who have left their comp

Yes I think they will if enough players say it's what is holding them back.
Any obstacle stopping players from signing will be challenged .
If they dont get the players in the first place they have no product.
I would imagine the argument is the same across the board. If R360 argue against a Rugby board and win then that finding probably stands up everywhere.

 

[Foordy]

There's no way that will hold up to a legal challenge.
NRL can get all the legal advice they want, most realistic scenario, is the lawyers told the NRL you can put up this statement and act tough publicly but if someone does challenge it, it won't hold up.

The NRL is bluffing and they'd know this won't hold up.

I disagree I think it will hold up as they wouldn't be discriminating against a protected class.

Not that it matters, because I doubt we'll ever see who's right ... It's unlikely this ever gets challenged in court