What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Rumoured and Confirmed Signings with added crap - XXVI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
19,724
Note: i cannot see a scenario where any amount we pay Hoppa falls under the salary cap. Legally binding is not with the NRL, but with the Eels, and so we owe Hoppa. Unregistered works in our favour here.

It's certainly true that the contract being unregistered works in our favour, it is also possible that any court-ordered payments to Hoppa will be assessed under the cap. The NRL can pretty much do what they want in a case like this, and if the court rules in Hoppa's favour, the NRL would hardly want to encourage similar behaviour in future.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
96,091
Not saying it's happening here, but it is a potential cap rort - paying a player an amount under the cap with the understanding that at the end of his career (or even just this contract) a large extension will be offered, agreed to, and then withdrawn. There will be court action and an out-of-court settlement and it doesn't count under the cap. Similar to a promise of a non-playing job on retirement, only more convoluted and damaging to everyone's reputations.
 

Bigfella

Coach
Messages
10,102
Definitlely. No doubt one of the things holding the settlement up is NRL approval and cap consequences for both clubs
 

oldmancraigy

Coach
Messages
12,072
Oh yeah, i am sure clubs will be falling over themselves to follow the Eels precedent :roll:

Step 1: hire a CEO due who signs dual contracts, 1 for official lodgement, the other a cheaty secret contract.
Step 2: sack CEO for cheaty contracts
Step 3: face NRL 500k fine and then potential loss of 4 comp points
Step 4: attempt to renegotiate cheaty contracts to legal contracts
Step 5: when 1 player dissents, tell them take it or leave it, and pay them possibly 500k in damages.

Not bad going, $1mill spent plus a new CEO just to get rid of a player you weren't required to negotiate with in the first place.
The precedent is thick on the ground. Clubs are queuing up to do the same.
 

oldmancraigy

Coach
Messages
12,072
Not saying it's happening here, but it is a potential cap rort - paying a player an amount under the cap with the understanding that at the end of his career (or even just this contract) a large extension will be offered, agreed to, and then withdrawn. There will be court action and an out-of-court settlement and it doesn't count under the cap. Similar to a promise of a non-playing job on retirement, only more convoluted and damaging to everyone's reputations.

:?

Is it not easier just to give them a job??? Why go to all the trouble....
 
Messages
19,724
Oh yeah, i am sure clubs will be falling over themselves to follow the Eels precedent :roll:

Step 1: hire a CEO due who signs dual contracts, 1 for official lodgement, the other a cheaty secret contract.
Step 2: sack CEO for cheaty contracts
Step 3: face NRL 500k fine and then potential loss of 4 comp points
Step 4: attempt to renegotiate cheaty contracts to legal contracts
Step 5: when 1 player dissents, tell them take it or leave it, and pay them possibly 500k in damages.

Not bad going, $1mill spent plus a new CEO just to get rid of a player you weren't required to negotiate with in the first place.
The precedent is thick on the ground. Clubs are queuing up to do the same.

Seriously?

Almost every point above is irrelevant to potential future problems that could occur if damages for breach are exempted from the cap. All that is required for a problem to occur is that a club (for whatever reason) agrees to terms with a player in writing, and then fails to lodge the contract with the NRL for registration. The consequences of that behaviour is what is being decided in the court, and (potentially) by the NRL thereafter.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
155,363
Hardly seems worth the effort mainly because, at this stage, we haven't got away with anything yet as we don't know the outcome of Hoppa's case and how it affects our salary cap.
 
Messages
19,724
Hardly seems worth the effort mainly because, at this stage, we haven't got away with anything yet as we don't know the outcome of Hoppa's case and how it affects our salary cap.

The discussion relates to what happens if Hoppa is successful in court, and how the NRL treats any subsequent damages ordered. Not to incentives currently in existence.
 

oldmancraigy

Coach
Messages
12,072
Seriously?

Almost every point above is irrelevant to potential future problems that could occur if damages for breach are exempted from the cap. All that is required for a problem to occur is that a club (for whatever reason) agrees to terms with a player in writing, and then fails to lodge the contract with the NRL for registration. The consequences of that behaviour is what is being decided in the court, and (potentially) by the NRL thereafter.

No, it is relevant, because we had contracts negotiated by a guy we sacked (and who had negotiated 2 contracts with at least 1 player) and then had to try and renegotiate in order not to breach/ cheat.

Why would that be irrelevant for precedent? A club says 'well Parra didn't lodge', yes, but their circumstances were vastly different (surely almost unique?)
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
96,091
I really wasn't referring to any current incentives.

Future instances of this potential loophole depend on the outcome of the current case. Obviously if the NRL decides to count any settlement against the cap it will close the loophole quick smart.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
155,363
Future instances of this potential loophole depend on the outcome of the current case. Obviously if the NRL decides to count any settlement against the cap it will close the loophole quick smart.

obviously

but there is a big difference between a loophole and incentive
 

Bigfella

Coach
Messages
10,102
All you would need to potentially seek the loophole is a dispute between a player and a club capable of being sued on and resolved by a financial settlement. If that payout is cap free clubs could get very creative either on their own or in conjunction with another club to get cap breaks.

Not sure what omc is on about.

Even pau is making more sense than him.
 
Messages
19,724
No, it is relevant, because we had contracts negotiated by a guy we sacked (and who had negotiated 2 contracts with at least 1 player) and then had to try and renegotiate in order not to breach/ cheat.

Why would that be irrelevant for precedent? A club says 'well Parra didn't lodge', yes, but their circumstances were vastly different (surely almost unique?)

AFAIK, the club's defense in court does not rely on the 'rogue CEO' story (and it would have f**k all chance if it did). And, at the end of the day, a club is responsible for the behaviour of its appointed officers.
 

caylo

Bench
Messages
4,870
All you would need to potentially seek the loophole is a dispute between a player and a club capable of being sued on and resolved by a financial settlement. If that payout is cap free clubs could get very creative either on their own or in conjunction with another club to get cap breaks.

Not sure what omc is on about.

Even pau is making more sense than him.

Agreed, while our situation is unique there could be other situations created which could attempt to use to bypass the cap. The problem arises though, what happeneds if tye settlement is finalised in 2-3 years? Just because Hopoate wins/loses in the coming months it could be appealed and no settlement finalised for a long time. For me the nrl needs to make a judgement (cap related of course not payment) on these situations independent of court outcomes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top