So you do think the courts will determine the NRLs decision?
Or will the NRL make their judgement independently?
And if so, surely the rogue CEO thing makes the whole situation a very difficult precedent??
I probably just read you wrong, but I understood you to be arguing that it would set a bad precedent if the NRL didn't slug us. A I did was point out how that is pretty far from the case (ie precedent is strange)!
I've said twice that the court won't
determine the NRL's decision. But it sure as hell has a potential impact on the NRL's decision, because if the court agrees with the club, then the NRL has no decision to make. If the NRL agree with Hoppa, then the NRL have to make a decision on the nature of any payments ordered by the court (i.e. whether they substantively relate to player salaries etc). I don't know how else to say that. The only people raising the rogue CEO argument as a differentiating feature of the entire Hoppa situation (which includes, but is not restricted to, the court case) are fans.
I don't think you read me wrong. I am saying that allowing a club to offer a player terms in writing, have that player agree in writing to those terms, and then for the club to refuse register the deal creates a bad precedent (all of this assumes that these events actually happened.....hence my reference to the court decision). This doesn't have to mean that dozens of clubs will immediately seek to exploit the precedent, but consider this situation that may occur if clubs know that damages similar to the current case are exempt from the cap:
Club A has a player who is in final year of contract, and whose early season form has waned slightly. The club is not sure whether this is a temporary loss of form or the start of a permanent decline. They re-sign him on an 'optimistic' contract, then sit on the paperwork for half a season, watch the player perform and then decide whether to fwd the paperwork for registration. If the player's form is strong, the club exercise their option, if not the club says 'Oh well, tough luck', and even if the court orders damages to be paid, the club knows there is no cap impact. Now this isn't going to be the standard operating procedure, but it is not something that I'd advocate encouraging.
What reason do you have to think the club doesn't have the upper hand?
A better than average understanding of the legal process and contract law in particular.[/QUOTE]
I have no idea who does, but I am far from convinced Hoppa's party does. I know we have debated this in advance a number of times. But neither of us have seen evidence, all we have to go on is the club refusing to speak about it but happily going to court and newspaper articles with Hoppas side of the story.
For all we know that is poppycock!
Now I am inclined to believe that the Eels will pay Hoppa's camp some cash, but cannot see any good reason why the NRL will count that against our cap.
Seems far more likely that they give (or have given?) us a tick of 'good governance' for trying to right a wrong, and for bringing Schu on board. Would be odd for us to be players in the player market without knowing our position especially considering it might cost us 4 comp points. Very good chance the cap related side of it is well done.
That is certainly possible (even likely?), but far from certain. In the absence of a decision regarding exactly what happened, it would be very hard for the NRL to give absolute guarantees. And....We are the club whose initial response to the demand that we appoint an independent party to the governance review was to say 'get stuffed'.
Again, I'm simply saying that anything remains possible from here on.
