typicalfan
Coach
- Messages
- 15,430
They are the rules though, if he wanted his rep payments he needed to stay in the game. It was his decision to move on.
imagine in your current job they set a clause syaing they'll take half your bonuses for work you've done and withold them if you go to another company....
Yeah they do, but they don't withhold that money if a player goes to another code/employer. The Wallabies and the Australian cricket team get money for each rep game they play. That money isn't taken away from them if they don't want to play the game anymore.
Code war battle? :lol: f**k, if the NRL actually paid it's players what they are worth then they wouldn't need these sort of draconian measures.
Now, back on topic. Do the ARL have a leg to stand on?
I would speculate that these payments are at the discretion of the ARL, and don't come under the banner of "contractually obliged".
Yep, they're about f**ked. The 2003 money hasn't been replaced.
Ask them when the next SANZAR TV contract is up?
Ask them when the next Pot 'o' gold RWC will be held in Australia?
You do know that they weren't interested because the IRB want money from the winner don't you?
It's clear to everyone that Union needs a RWC here urgently, yet the next possible time is what, 2023? It couldn't keep the ARC, attendances and down, ratings are shot, all their high profile players are just about gone...
Hell, Union will quite possibly be back to amateur in Australia well before 2023...
Such agreements are not unusual across many different industries, and I have had one myself