Rumours and Stuff

[IFR33K]

Bloody great example, Lyon couldn’t play in the NRL for a few years because the eels refused to let him break his contract. We forced him to play country footy then go overseas. I am pretty sure that wasn’t Lyon’s preference.......

We could have forced him not to play footy at all, but we were being nice...

Can’t see contracts being favourable to the player, it’s just like any situation when someone wants to break a contract.....

Mate you’re missing my point.

Parra signed him to play for the eels. Not for a bush team. There is no way the eels could of forced Lyon to play for them. So in that instance when Lyon has the dummy spit nothing but eels could do but grant a conditional release.

Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot? Imagine if the eels just decided to stop paying Lyon but still expected him to play. The nrl would be absolutely livid and the player welfare association would be up in arms too. Gronk would of got her knickers in a massive knot!!!!!

 

[IFR33K]

Oh shit. I was thinking of 2005 when we got walloped 28-0

29*

 

[84 Baby]

Anyway where’s all the signing news?

 

[Gronk]

Gronk would of got her knickers in a massive knot!!!!!

Ouch. Why are people so unkind ?

 

[IFR33K]

Ouch. Why are people so unkind ?

You’re not white???

 

[Happy MEel]

Lane 64mins
Matterson 34mins at 2nd row and 20mins in middle

New 2nd rower 62mins

Evan's on bench 35mins RCG 35 mins
Another prop 30mins Jnr 40mins
Another 2nd rower 62mins
Hooker/utility 15-20mins for Mahoney

Leaves 20mins for Matterson or 30 if we give Brown a rest.

Do you want BROWN,LANE playing 80mins week in week out?

Well yes I do want Lane playing 80 minutes week in and week out, as he did this year to a very high standard. He played the full 80 minutes 19/25 games this season, with his lowest game time being 62 minutes when he got a rest after sparking the Broncos in the first semi.

I’m not sure why you brought Brown into the conversation (assume you mean Nathan) as we were talking about edge forwards, but I’d also prefer to have him play more than 60 minutes per game.

For the record, Matterson is also plays large minutes, having played the full 80 minutes 16/24 games this year and a minimum of 61 minutes.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Mate you’re missing my point.

Parra signed him to play for the eels. Not for a bush team. There is no way the eels could of forced Lyon to play for them. So in that instance when Lyon has the dummy spit nothing but eels could do but grant a conditional release.

Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot? Imagine if the eels just decided to stop paying Lyon but still expected him to play. The nrl would be absolutely livid and the player welfare association would be up in arms too. Gronk would of got her knickers in a massive knot!!!!!

The NRL can definitely disallow a player playing with one NRL club while under contract to another. They can also unilaterally decide to exempt his salary from a club's cap while he's refusing to play for them.

 

[IFR33K]

The NRL can definitely disallow a player playing with one NRL club while under contract to another. They can also unilaterally decide to exempt his salary from a club's cap while he's refusing to play for them.

Lyon wasn’t bought by parra to play bush footy. He was bought to play for the eels. How did that turn out? Player has a dummy spit and the club has no choice but to bow to the player.

 

[Gronk]

Lyon wasn’t bought by parra to play bush footy. He was bought to play for the eels. How did that turn out? Player has a dummy spit and the club has no choice but to bow to the player.

SBW had to borrow $750k from Mundine to pay the Dogs out of his contract.

 

[84 Baby]

Lyon wasn’t bought by parra to play bush footy. He was bought to play for the eels. How did that turn out? Player has a dummy spit and the club has no choice but to bow to the player.

And if the club hadn’t taken $150k as a payout from St Helens, how would’ve it worked out for Lyon?
That said I also think there should be less incentive for players to skip. Perhaps the buying team gets slugged if the player makes request, but then you’d wind up with situations where clubs treat players like dirt to get them to make request.
Like all contracts, there’s the risk of non-fulfilment (just like my wife!), but like IRL the non-performing party then risks not receiving subsequent contracts

 

[IFR33K]

SBW had to borrow $750k from Mundine to pay the Dogs out of his contract.

I’m sure the dogs would rather sbw over the money. But they had no choice.

 

[Soren Lorenson]

Kent I think suggested that players like Matto or Bateman can move but only if they are paid the same amount by the new club. There is no doubt some issues with that (restraint of trade?) but would sort the ones who have a genuine problem with their existing club from the ones who just want to bend them over. Maybe the rule shoupd be if the club upgrades a player mid contract, they also have the right to downgrade them if they are playing shit. I don't know.

 

[Gronk]

I’m sure the dogs would rather sbw over the money. But they had no choice.

Would you prefer a court order requiring the disgruntled player to turn up to training and games ? It would be a bit of a farce, don't you think ? Hence the commercial decision for the party who repudiated the contract to pay damages.

 

[IFR33K]

Would you prefer a court order requiring the disgruntled player to turn up to training and games ? It would be a bit of a farce, don't you think ? Hence the commercial decision for the party who repudiated the contract to pay damages.

There’s no way a court could force the player (sbw) to play for the dogs. Hence why I’m saying the contracts a little more favourable towards the player, because the player would always get his money.

 

[hineyrulz]

29*

FFS!!! Still have nightmares of Wags running out of the line against Bowen.


I felt worse than I did in 2001.

 

[Gronk]

There’s no way a court could force the player (sbw) to play for the dogs. Hence why I’m saying the contracts a little more favourable towards the player, because the player would always get his money.

Yes but is life in general employment law. Your boss can seek to injunct or restrain you from working for someone else. He may allow you to work there if you pay him cash. So this is not a NRL or sport thing.

 

[IFR33K]

Paul Kent raises a good point on nrl 360.

He’s saying that the nrl should introduce a rule, that if a player initiates a release, and it’s granted, then that player can’t go elsewhere within the nrl and earn more money for the same duration of his original contract.

Sure as hell would stop or limit players jumping ship mid contract.

 

[Eelogical]

Paul Kent raises a good point on nrl 360.

He’s saying that the nrl should introduce a rule, that if a player initiates a release, and it’s granted, then that player can’t go elsewhere within the nrl and earn more money for the same duration of his original contract.

Sure as hell would stop or limit players jumping ship mid contract.

I'm sure ship salesman would like it too.

 

[Jake the snake]

FFS!!! Still have nightmares of Wags running out of the line against Bowen.


I felt worse than I did in 2001.

Wags .... what a shit player. Typical Brian Smith choker

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Lyon wasn’t bought by parra to play bush footy. He was bought to play for the eels. How did that turn out? Player has a dummy spit and the club has no choice but to bow to the player.

We stopped him joining Manly for years. He had to leave the country to earn any money in rugby league. If Lyon got his way he would've joined Cleal immediately.