NRL Player Movement and Rumours 2018

[Unbreakable]

Regarding a certain forward whose club was attempting to release him a few days ago (According to some RL media). From what I have heard, if the club actually wanted to release him they could have just given him the SKD, Jayden Nikorima treatment.

Are you saying big red has been a naughty boy?

 

[Cult]

Are you saying big red has been a naughty boy?

I don't know how much I can say but it seems to be a few from that club. They really have a terrible culture. I'm not sure how long Cronk will last there

 

[badyon]

I'm not sure how long Cronk will last there

Pretty sure Cronk's seen it all. Bromwich and Proctor dialling up Charlie this year would only be the small tip of it.

 

[Cult]

Pretty sure Cronk's seen it all. Bromwich and Proctor dialling up Charlie this year would only be the small tip of it.

Very true. Probably doesn't go out with the team much either.

Something rubs me the wrong way about the Roosters. The way they go about their business just seems dirty. Yeah, clubs release players all the time but they could ruin these players careers and lives by saving up their failed drug tests until they're not needed anymore

 

[Broncs_Fan]

I'm not convinced the Roosters will be that good next season. Forwards depth does not look that good.

 

[Nashy]

Someone needs to because this is deadset the only place I visit that says a player can ask for a release to join another club and expect his current club to make up the shortfall.

There is no clearing up really. Only one dude here seems to think that mutual release means the current club pays the new club. It's simply not the way it happens.

 

[Morkel]

There is no clearing up really. Only one dude here seems to think that mutual release means the current club pays the new club. It's simply not the way it happens.

Yet no one can point to a single pre-Hayne example where both sides have been able to mutually tear up the contract and the player move to another NRL club on less money with the old club not having to contribute.

 

[Nashy]

And no one can find an example of a rule that states they do. It's up to the parties involved.

If Hayne asks to leave, why would they have to pay out his contract. The compensation only comes in if they need the player gone and another club won't pay all of the fee.

 

[Morkel]

And no one can find an example of a rule that states they do. It's up to the parties involved.

If Hayne asks to leave, why would they have to pay out his contract. The compensation only comes in if they need the player gone and another club won't pay all of the fee.

Like I said earlier, it's to protect the player.

The reasoning would be more for younger players who have been signed on overs, but would still apply across the board. If, say, an unscrupulous club like, say, the Roosters realised that they'd paid overs for a young player that didn't live up to expectations. If they wanted Nikorima, sorry, "nameless player" gone, they could either play him in reserve grade, or even just sit out the year, knowing that it would damage that player's chances of getting a new deal anywhere else in the future. They would do that knowing that the player would much rather take a lesser deal elsewhere in order to keep playing, and happily negotiate a "mutual release", that way the Roosters would not have to pay a cent towards the shortfall. To prevent that from happening, and to protect players from dodgy club dealings, once a contract is lodged with the NRL, that player is guaranteed that money while ever they're still in the NRL, and the club that registers the contract is effectively a guarantor of that value.

I could ask the NRL what the rules are, but I doubt they'll even know. And unfortunately the Roosters seem to have a fridge full of their player's failed drugs tests that they can raid whenever they need a loophole.

 

[Nashy]

Like I said earlier, it's to protect the player.

The reasoning would be more for younger players who have been signed on overs, but would still apply across the board. If, say, an unscrupulous club like, say, the Roosters realised that they'd paid overs for a young player that didn't live up to expectations. If they wanted Nikorima, sorry, "nameless player" gone, they could either play him in reserve grade, or even just sit out the year, knowing that it would damage that player's chances of getting a new deal anywhere else in the future. They would do that knowing that the player would much rather take a lesser deal elsewhere in order to keep playing, and happily negotiate a "mutual release", that way the Roosters would not have to pay a cent towards the shortfall. To prevent that from happening, and to protect players from dodgy club dealings, once a contract is lodged with the NRL, that player is guaranteed that money while ever they're still in the NRL, and the club that registers the contract is effectively a guarantor of that value.

I could ask the NRL what the rules are, but I doubt they'll even know. And unfortunately the Roosters seem to have a fridge full of their player's failed drugs tests that they can raid whenever they need a loophole.

I honestly don't think it has anything to do with the NRL. They only register the contract and de-register it when requested. What happens in the transfer is down to contract law, and what the contract allows.

 

[Sproj]

I could ask the NRL what the rules are, but I doubt they'll even know.

And THIS is hitting the nail on the head.

 

[Sproj]

I honestly don't think it has anything to do with the NRL. They only register the contract and de-register it when requested. What happens in the transfer is down to contract law, and what the contract allows.

In these three sentences, you have just done more work than anyone in the NRL legal department...if they even have one.

 

[Foordy]

I honestly don't think it has anything to do with the NRL. They only register the contract and de-register it when requested. What happens in the transfer is down to contract law, and what the contract allows.

there are several things in the NRL that if tested in court would be ruled illegal, but clubs and players just accept them going in (then in some cases try to find dodgy ways around them)

 

[john1420]

Every article written about this speaks of Hayne sacrificing money

If he still gets paid the 1.2mill he hasn't sacrificed any money

And it's not 1 or 2 articles, it's every article

And even moreso, that line of thinking actually lines up with standard contract law

Perhaps we will never know with 100% certainty, but I believe the weight of evidence is that Hayne is playing for less and Tits are not contributing the 700k balance

 

[Nashy]

there are several things in the NRL that if tested in court would be ruled illegal, but clubs and players just accept them going in (then in some cases try to find dodgy ways around them)

Which ones?

 

[Foordy]

Which ones?

Salary cap for one ... it has long been thought been thought that if tested it could be deemed a restraint of trade. (a lawyer mate of mine thinks that there would be a strong case to have it scrapped should it ever be challenged in court)

along similar lines is this "notional value" that the NRL requires certain players to be paid regardless of any deal they negotiate between clubs (e.g when the NRL refused to allow Folau to sign with the Eels because the contract wasn't big enough)

Possibly even the TPA rules (although that's would probably be as a part of the challenge to the salary cap case)

Remember the NRL has already had one of it's rules/systems deemed Illegal (Draft) after it was challenged in court by Terry Hill. the NRL were also told by the courts at one stage which clubs they had to include in their competition

obviously these wouldn't 100% be ruled illegal as no one ever knows how a court will rule, but they each have strong cases if ever challenged ... which is unlikely as they are just accepted as part of the NRL competition.

 

[mitch222]

I don't know how much I can say but it seems to be a few from that club. They really have a terrible culture. I'm not sure how long Cronk will last there

Considering the cocaine kiwis in Proctor and Bromwich were done earlier on this year, i think it is most likely the norm down in melbourne only with the exception that no one in Melbourne actually gives a shit about that behaviour because they arent that high profile compared to a Dangerfield, Selwood, Dusty Martin etc. So the general public doesnt even bother to report it. I think Cronk will struggle next year because Sydney is high profile for league players. You are always in the spotlight in Sydney & Queensland and people pay alot more attention to you when you are out and about.

 

[Nashy]

Salary cap for one ... it has long been thought been thought that if tested it could be deemed a restraint of trade. (a lawyer mate of mine thinks that there would be a strong case to have it scrapped should it ever be challenged in court)

along similar lines is this "notional value" that the NRL requires certain players to be paid regardless of any deal they negotiate between clubs (e.g when the NRL refused to allow Folau to sign with the Eels because the contract wasn't big enough)

Possibly even the TPA rules (although that's would probably be as a part of the challenge to the salary cap case)

Remember the NRL has already had one of it's rules/systems deemed Illegal (Draft) after it was challenged in court by Terry Hill. the NRL were also told by the courts at one stage which clubs they had to include in their competition

obviously these wouldn't 100% be ruled illegal as no one ever knows how a court will rule, but they each have strong cases if ever challenged ... which is unlikely as they are just accepted as part of the NRL competition.

Wasn't the ARL cap found to be legal in court at some point, and not a restriction of trade?

A minimum wage can be set by a governing body. It's their rules.

TPA rules would be tough, I think the NRL would lose that fight. Players should be able to make as much money as they like off the books. But you understand why they have to enforce it.

I don't believe any of them are very strong cases at all. Our game, our rules, don't like it, put your team in the other professional RL comp....