Here's the thing. These players had legal contracts. With the club. NOT the NRL.
Agreed. Read back. We're on the same page here.
As soon as the Melbourne Storm lodged falsified/incorrect documents to the governing body, which is the NRL, and once they were found to be falsified/incorrect, the NRL lodged contracts became null and void.
No, they're still binding between club and player if the NRL is not party to the contract as you state above. Show me the money!
For all the players that had more than 1 contract. This is exactly how things would work in the "real" world. The aggrieved party would then have the right to sue the infringing party (in this case, the Melbourne Storm), for damages caused/loss of income.
No, the players have an election to cancel the contract for the Storm's breach and seek damages, or forgive the breach and just keep accepting the payments due under it. Only problem is - they have to be registered players to play in the NRL. But they can sit back and bank the cheques if the Storm cannot reach an agreement with the players that gets the Storm under the cap. If the Storm stops sending those cheques, well then actions for damages under the contract happen.
So yes, the players had legal rights. But the NRL would have had every right to make every illegitimate contract null and void.
No. The NRL is not a court and not party to the contract as you state above. Are you using null and void to sound fancy, or do you know the differences between void and voidable and breaches resulting in legitimate cancellation as against repudiation? Null and void seems way off to me. The player can enforce the contract against the club.
Not a single person here is saying that players had to be traded against their will. If none of the Melbourne players were prepared to leave the club, then the club would have been legally obligated to meet the conditions of their contracts, regardless of the salary cap implications thereafter.
Contracted players leave clubs all the time, often with the club they are leaving picking up a portion of their salary for the remainder of their contracts. Why? Because they are legally entitled for that contract to be enforced.
Exactly why the contracts are not null and void.
In the real world - the contract between the club and the player cannot be terminated by the NRL who is not a party to the contract. It is binding between the club and the player. The NRL can possibly deregister the registered contracted player if its terms and agreement with the Club so permit for submitting false information. Lets assume this is so. Even then, this decision to deregister the player is possibly judicially reviewable by the player themselves. Lets say the player(s) loses or doesn't bring his case, the club is likely to be in breach with the player's contract by supplying inaccurate information to the NRL resulting in deregistration and being unable to play. So then it is up to the players and the club to decide what to do for the club to get under the cap by supplying accurate information. Take a pay cut,walk, same money and someone else pay cut or walk? Walk and hold the club to the overs lost on new contract? Free trade rules here.
But this is boring legal mumbo jumbo, so I suggest that you read back further because this is totally wrong:
"Not a single person here is saying that players had to be traded against their will."
Yes, they are. They are suggesting all should have been made to leave the storm and each join different clubs, through to the storm should lose their entire roster and start over.
I would love to hear your rationale for this. From memory, I don't think the NRL demanded any particular player/s leave. The only way for Melbourne to become cap complaint was for one of the "big 4" to leave. Melbourne chose GI because he was the most expendable. He was the one who was closest to his contract ending, therefore reducing any long term burden on the club in the fact that they may have to pick up a portion of his wage. As for the demand being legitimate - of course it was. There are a set of clearly defined rules for teams to meet to be in the NRL. One of these is to be salary cap compliant. The demand was to become cap complaint, and that restructuring of contracts would not be allowed. The NRL did nothing but demand the club follow one of the basic rules of eligibility. It's completely legitimate.
The demand to be cap compliant is different to a possible demand that one of the big 4 leave. I have no issue with the former. Where did I get one of the big 4 must go from? It is how I recalled it being reported when it broke in 2010 and discussed later. It quite likely may have been misreported as journalists often struggle when reporting legal issues. They're not lawyers. But I remember it being reported as the NRL had directed that one of the big 4 must leave which I find illegitimate. Of course directing to get under the cap anyway they see fit or can is legitimate. If practical to shed one of the Big 4 to get cap compliant, I agree that that's fine, if ordered by the NRL, that's not fine, though.
