mrslong
International Rep
- Mar 25, 2008
- 13,300
- 13,490
Didn't Dummy Bill ask for a release earlier in the season?
C
Coxy
International Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 31,212
- 1,886
No. He expressed discontent and sought meetings with the Bulldogs to discuss, but NEVER asked for a release. The Bulldogs committed to do everything they could to make $BW feel better. Including that whole terribly misguided Polynesian day at the game.
And even if he had asked for a release and the Bulldogs said no, the next course of action was to challenge the contract in court. Express his discontent, make up his story about being forced to sign a 5-year deal in duress (even though they only wanted him to sign for 3, and he asked for 5).
And even if he had asked for a release and the Bulldogs said no, the next course of action was to challenge the contract in court. Express his discontent, make up his story about being forced to sign a 5-year deal in duress (even though they only wanted him to sign for 3, and he asked for 5).
mrslong
International Rep
- Mar 25, 2008
- 13,300
- 13,490
The more I'm learning about this, the dirtier I feel - it's all so sordid...I don't like this business at all! Oh to be a fly on the wall in the NRL/Bulldogs/Nasser chambers!!!
C
Coxy
International Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 31,212
- 1,886
Absolutely!
I might add that $BW most likely fled the country because he knew a) he wouldn't get given a release and b) there was no basis to challenge the validity of the contract. He was probably advised that by skipping the country they couldn't do anything about it.
That could be true, unless he ever wants to come back to Australia or NZ.
Note that I think the legacy of this incident will be standard clauses written into all NRL contracts effectively saying:
- you agree not to play in any professional sport not sanctioned by the NRL anywhere in the world during the term of this contract without written permission from the club and the NRL
- any breach in contract may be terminated by the club and the NRL, and the player will be liable for damages up to 30% of the worth of the remainder of the contract (so in $BW's case he'd have had to pay roughly $382K to the club)
I'm no lawyer, but I see no reason why this sort of clause can't be enforced. I know all my professional contracts say something along those lines, that while I'm working for the company in my profession I'm not entitled to do paid work of similar kind for any other organisation without permission.
It also says I can't go to a competitor for a year after termination of the contract, but they couldn't enforce that in sport. And frankly I doubt they'd be able to enforce it in my profession either. It's an unreasonable restraint of trade.
I might add that $BW most likely fled the country because he knew a) he wouldn't get given a release and b) there was no basis to challenge the validity of the contract. He was probably advised that by skipping the country they couldn't do anything about it.
That could be true, unless he ever wants to come back to Australia or NZ.
Note that I think the legacy of this incident will be standard clauses written into all NRL contracts effectively saying:
- you agree not to play in any professional sport not sanctioned by the NRL anywhere in the world during the term of this contract without written permission from the club and the NRL
- any breach in contract may be terminated by the club and the NRL, and the player will be liable for damages up to 30% of the worth of the remainder of the contract (so in $BW's case he'd have had to pay roughly $382K to the club)
I'm no lawyer, but I see no reason why this sort of clause can't be enforced. I know all my professional contracts say something along those lines, that while I'm working for the company in my profession I'm not entitled to do paid work of similar kind for any other organisation without permission.
It also says I can't go to a competitor for a year after termination of the contract, but they couldn't enforce that in sport. And frankly I doubt they'd be able to enforce it in my profession either. It's an unreasonable restraint of trade.
mrslong
International Rep
- Mar 25, 2008
- 13,300
- 13,490
I find it astounding that those sorts of clauses aren't in existing contracts, and if a clause said something along the lines of "shall not play for any other club" then that could mean anything from the Frogs to the Albany Creek Samford District Softball club.
If current contracts don't stipulate they can't defect and go overseas to a rival sport, then that'd explain why Melbourne are eager to re-sign Inglis even though he's got 2 years left!!
If current contracts don't stipulate they can't defect and go overseas to a rival sport, then that'd explain why Melbourne are eager to re-sign Inglis even though he's got 2 years left!!
C
Coxy
International Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 31,212
- 1,886
That's the thing, the contracts really only protect clubs from having players poached by other NRL clubs. The clauses need to be written to be more inclusive of the other rival sports. It wouldn't be too hard for the NRL to prove that Super 14, ESL, French Rugby etc are all similar competitions and thus their clubs are direct competitors.
The thing is the law really protects only commercial in confidence and intellectual property from being moved from workplace to workplace. ie, stuff you do for company X can not be used by you for Company Y which you are now working for, unless you are the copyright owner of it and bring it to each of the companies. It's more complicated than that but that's the gist.
What does this mean for sport? Not much, since the products being moved around are the players and their inherent skills. You can't reasonably claim that because you assisted the player in developing those skills that you OWN that player and his skills.
It's tough. But the NRL have to have clauses like this in place and players have to agree to them. If they do, and sign the contract, then it's harder for them to argue that it's unfair in court. Just as it may be hard for the NRL to argue now that French Rugby is a "like competitor" for them and thus forbidding $BW playing there without permission.
Ugh, I hate the law.
The thing is the law really protects only commercial in confidence and intellectual property from being moved from workplace to workplace. ie, stuff you do for company X can not be used by you for Company Y which you are now working for, unless you are the copyright owner of it and bring it to each of the companies. It's more complicated than that but that's the gist.
What does this mean for sport? Not much, since the products being moved around are the players and their inherent skills. You can't reasonably claim that because you assisted the player in developing those skills that you OWN that player and his skills.
It's tough. But the NRL have to have clauses like this in place and players have to agree to them. If they do, and sign the contract, then it's harder for them to argue that it's unfair in court. Just as it may be hard for the NRL to argue now that French Rugby is a "like competitor" for them and thus forbidding $BW playing there without permission.
Ugh, I hate the law.
Professor47
NRL Player
- Mar 5, 2008
- 1,632
- 81
Few rambles off my head, first of all, everyone agrees, what SBW did was ordinary, no questions asked, but I agree with certain points on the footy show, its besides the point imo.
I think SBW was best summed up with there was a different way to go about things, players become unhappy, its human, they dont want to be there anymore, SBW should DEFINITELY have approached things differently, at the end of the day, best wishes to him, I'm more concerned about the game than anything.
There is no need for a knee jerk reaction that is true, but you are a liar if you dont think the ESL, ARU and now the French Rugby are a threat to our star players, there is no denying that, the answers is what everyone wants but no one seems to have them. One thing for sure is this, We need to raise more revenue, everyone agree? The game needs to be financially stronger to compete, we all know NRL get paid peanuts compared to other sports, of course there are various reasons for this, and PLEASE do not give me the argument of 'How about the average Joe Blow who earns 50k, these NRL players should be happy with what they have', from a personal POV, I despise that argument, I think its rubbish, consider SBW not as a RL player for a moment, just an athlete, other codes offer him large amounts of money, you are worth what people are willing to pay for you, theres no reason why these athletes should not be able to earn top dollar, sure they have to earn it by playing a different code or play overseas, but that is THEIR choice. (Im not talking about SBW here, walking out on a contract is a diff story) But I dont blame players at all for chasing money, not one bit, its their choice not to play RL in AUS, and they forgo Rep jerseys.
Bottom line: More revenue, Players should not be condemned for chasing the cash imo.
End rant.
I think SBW was best summed up with there was a different way to go about things, players become unhappy, its human, they dont want to be there anymore, SBW should DEFINITELY have approached things differently, at the end of the day, best wishes to him, I'm more concerned about the game than anything.
There is no need for a knee jerk reaction that is true, but you are a liar if you dont think the ESL, ARU and now the French Rugby are a threat to our star players, there is no denying that, the answers is what everyone wants but no one seems to have them. One thing for sure is this, We need to raise more revenue, everyone agree? The game needs to be financially stronger to compete, we all know NRL get paid peanuts compared to other sports, of course there are various reasons for this, and PLEASE do not give me the argument of 'How about the average Joe Blow who earns 50k, these NRL players should be happy with what they have', from a personal POV, I despise that argument, I think its rubbish, consider SBW not as a RL player for a moment, just an athlete, other codes offer him large amounts of money, you are worth what people are willing to pay for you, theres no reason why these athletes should not be able to earn top dollar, sure they have to earn it by playing a different code or play overseas, but that is THEIR choice. (Im not talking about SBW here, walking out on a contract is a diff story) But I dont blame players at all for chasing money, not one bit, its their choice not to play RL in AUS, and they forgo Rep jerseys.
Bottom line: More revenue, Players should not be condemned for chasing the cash imo.
End rant.
Hamm.0
NRL Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 4,671
- 1
- Thread starter
- #26
lockyer47 said:
No one is condemning players.
People are condemning SBW for his dog act.
The NRL is trying to find ways to pay players more, it is already in the process of steadily increasing the salary cap.
Other codes have FAR more earning capacity and can therefore throw more coin at players, good luck to the players that want to pursue those codes. Of course, none of those players grow up in those codes talent schemes, those codes just reap the benefit of what the NRL provides then. It is akin to having a mining giant in a 3rd world country. Yes the company is (for lack of a better word) exploiting the natural resource to make money, however they are also training mass amounts of locals in particular skill sets. If the company leaves, the locals get....well, nothing. If the NRL folded tomorrow and all juniors, after U17's had to either, go to ESL or Union. Those codes would be shit. The NRL is the quality product, everyone knows it. That is why they target NRL players. So, I guess if you are a player (at a young age), you got to ask yourself, “do I want to earn, more money or do I want to play rep footy and challenge myself in the toughest comp in the world? Each to their own; however we all have just 1 life to achieve our dreams.
Last night’s Footy Show is a good talking point and I’m going to start a thread just for it.
Professor47
NRL Player
- Mar 5, 2008
- 1,632
- 81
^
Well said, but the 'stigma' or the 'implications' surrounding those players that choose to earn more money is misconcieved in a way, of course playing for the love of the game, rep footy and challenging yourself is all admirable aspects, but so is exploring areas that will maximise your wealth and in turn you may decide to do something with it also, I for one, put in that situation would defintiely invest or try to make use of that money to further venture into doing things that I wouldn't be able to do without it.
I have to say its a tough scenario, I doubt anyone knows what they would do put into the situation, we can only say what we think we would do.
I think Thurston is a good example, lets say for arguments sake he is off contract at the end of this year, he's supposedly in his prime time league age, lets assume he has the QLD 7 and AUS 7 Cemented and he is obviosuly in a possible captaincy role down the track. Lets say he earns 400k a year, ESL, ARU or TOULON offer him 1.2m a season (triple salary, or for arguments sake even if it was double or a bit over)
Now that is a tough situation I have to say, I've grown up surrounded by business, and have very slight experience and education in it, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know there are opportunities with that sort of money, not saying there isn't with 400k if used wisely, but you can't deny the gates of opportunity with thrice that.
But growing up around NRL, being able to play SOO and for AUS will be a dream come true also... its a life decision isn't it?
It wouldn't be easy.
Well said, but the 'stigma' or the 'implications' surrounding those players that choose to earn more money is misconcieved in a way, of course playing for the love of the game, rep footy and challenging yourself is all admirable aspects, but so is exploring areas that will maximise your wealth and in turn you may decide to do something with it also, I for one, put in that situation would defintiely invest or try to make use of that money to further venture into doing things that I wouldn't be able to do without it.
I have to say its a tough scenario, I doubt anyone knows what they would do put into the situation, we can only say what we think we would do.
I think Thurston is a good example, lets say for arguments sake he is off contract at the end of this year, he's supposedly in his prime time league age, lets assume he has the QLD 7 and AUS 7 Cemented and he is obviosuly in a possible captaincy role down the track. Lets say he earns 400k a year, ESL, ARU or TOULON offer him 1.2m a season (triple salary, or for arguments sake even if it was double or a bit over)
Now that is a tough situation I have to say, I've grown up surrounded by business, and have very slight experience and education in it, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know there are opportunities with that sort of money, not saying there isn't with 400k if used wisely, but you can't deny the gates of opportunity with thrice that.
But growing up around NRL, being able to play SOO and for AUS will be a dream come true also... its a life decision isn't it?
It wouldn't be easy.
C
Coxy
International Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 31,212
- 1,886
It depends on the individual. Leigh Matthews was saying about AFL players that a lot of the Lions players don't even like the game, they do it because it's a job and good money.
League would have plenty of people like that too. Look at Eric Grothe for example!
For them, playing for your state, or winning a premiership or playing for your country are "nice" but not important. So if you haven't achieved any of them and get offered a whopping great contract overseas, you'd take it.
Others, like Lockyer, are very much goal oriented people. They thrive on and create new challenges for themselves within the code they're in. Lockyer has a driving ambition to captain a winning World Cup team. He has a desire to captain the Broncos to a premiership. To play 300 first grade games for the Broncos. Captain a winning Origin series, and the 4th in a row would be a huge carrot for him.
He always has had those goals and so would never and did never consider leaving.
Not all players have those dreams. Some, like the Lions Matthews was talking about, have financial dreams, travelling dreams, and to them sport is a means to an end.
League players are blessed where those AFL guys aren't that they have so many choices to achieve those financial goals and travel goals while young and in their prime.
Who's to say Izzy Folau won't think by the time he's 21 "I've won a World Cup, Premiership and Origin...what's left to do?"
There is NOTHING the NRL can do to change that. As I said, all they can do is make the money better as is possible within the game to make those dreams ALSO financially viable.
As you say, it's a life decision.
League would have plenty of people like that too. Look at Eric Grothe for example!
For them, playing for your state, or winning a premiership or playing for your country are "nice" but not important. So if you haven't achieved any of them and get offered a whopping great contract overseas, you'd take it.
Others, like Lockyer, are very much goal oriented people. They thrive on and create new challenges for themselves within the code they're in. Lockyer has a driving ambition to captain a winning World Cup team. He has a desire to captain the Broncos to a premiership. To play 300 first grade games for the Broncos. Captain a winning Origin series, and the 4th in a row would be a huge carrot for him.
He always has had those goals and so would never and did never consider leaving.
Not all players have those dreams. Some, like the Lions Matthews was talking about, have financial dreams, travelling dreams, and to them sport is a means to an end.
League players are blessed where those AFL guys aren't that they have so many choices to achieve those financial goals and travel goals while young and in their prime.
Who's to say Izzy Folau won't think by the time he's 21 "I've won a World Cup, Premiership and Origin...what's left to do?"
There is NOTHING the NRL can do to change that. As I said, all they can do is make the money better as is possible within the game to make those dreams ALSO financially viable.
As you say, it's a life decision.
Burg
QCup Player
- Mar 4, 2008
- 565
- 20
mrslong said:
I agree, the side effect for me is the loss of experience. Many of the "Superstars" that were mentioned would come through anyway, but the loss of the experience first grader can not be underestimated. They pass on more to the up and comers then just how to pass a ball but how to deal with pressure situations on and off the field and what we are seeing from these young players that are thrust into the limelight well before their time is starting to show more and more. A really good player is never held back, because the cream will always rise, maybe not with the club they are at. I just don’t think you can keep taking regular, experienced and proven first graders out of the clubs and have no side affect.
