News NRL to Crackdown on Players Breaking Contracts

[Captain Apollo]

The following article is from the Fox Sports website (source: https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...i/news-story/5512fed1f8b9482e10727970a281f365) -

You sign it, you cop it: NRL cracks down on players forcing their way out of contracts for more money

• December 2, 2020 12:07pm
• DARCIE MCDONALD
• Source: FOX SPORTS

The NRL is set to crack down on players breaking contracts to sign bigger deals with rival clubs.

It comes amid a number of situations where players have broken their existing deals, often citing family or personal reasons, and then signing with a rival club on an upgraded deal.

The Daily Telegraph reports the ARL Commission will meet on Wednesday to discuss a new rule which stipulates that if a player does break their existing contract for whatever reason, they must not sign with a rival for more money.

Using Josh Aloiai merely as an example and not to suggest his concerns with the club weren’t legitimate, he requested a release from the final year of his Tigers contract to then take up a three-year offer from Manly. The new deal was reportedly worth much more than what he was earning at the Tigers. Under the new rule, Aloiai would receive the same salary for his first year at Manly that he would have received in his final contracted year with the Tigers.

Aloiai is certainly not the first player to cash in on breaking a contract. Blake Green earned a pay rise when he got a release from Manly to join the Warriors, as did David Klemmer who walked out on the Bulldogs to join the Knights.

The Tigers have been victim to the ploy before Aloiai as well with star back-rower Ryan Matterson reportedly receiving a hefty pay rise when he joined the Eels.

The constant breaking of contracts forced Tigers chairman Lee Hagipentalis to seek change.

NRL.com reported a fortnight ago that Hagipentalis would meet with NRL CEO Andrew Abdo to urge a rule change.

“My personal view is that if it’s a release on whatever grounds, the player should not be seeking to gain a commercial advantage elsewhere,” Hagipentalis told NRL.com.

“If it’s legitimate compassionate grounds it should be treated as such, with the respect and discretion it deserves.

“But if there’s a player earning more money by getting that release, the inference is that compassionate grounds are being used to exit a contract to seek a commercial advantage. That should not be allowed to occur.”

The new rule being considered by the ARLC would separate players who are seeking a release for genuine reasons and those who are eyeing an upgraded deal elsewhere.

 

[t-ba]

Can't see how that will hold up in court...

 

[mave]

"The new rule being considered by the ARLC would separate players who are seeking a release for genuine reasons and those who are eyeing an upgraded deal elsewhere."


Yay !!
More room for inconsistency and grey areas for the NRL to use to favour certain clubs.

 

[simmo05]

How about if you sign the merkin, you stay for the duration. If you still want out, sit out the duration unpaid. At least tallis was man enough to do that

 

[Apey]

I, for one, take all NRL crackdowns very seriously.

 

[Quicksilver]

Can't see how that will hold up in court...

why wouldn’t it?

 

[Exsilium]

"The new rule being considered by the ARLC would separate players who are seeking a release for genuine reasons and those who are eyeing an upgraded deal elsewhere."


Yay !!
More room for inconsistency and grey areas for the NRL to use to favour certain clubs.

Souths management held their breath when the news was announced but were relieved when they said “genuine reasons” would be considered.

 

[Quicksilver]

Souths management held their breath when the news was announced but were relieved when they said “genuine reasons” would be considered.

Every player in the NRL has a close family member living in Bondi?

 

[t-ba]

why wouldn’t it?

It's a new contract.

Beyond the salary cap, where an argument of equalisation of the competition through competitive measures as a whole might hold up, restraining the earning potential of individuals within that cap would be very difficult to maintain.

Cannot see it holding up against a legal challenge.

All this talk of loyalty is annoying. They've got a decade tops unless they're freaks like Cam Smith to make the most money they ever will. I'm not happy that AFB left but as I said at the time that's football and I'll wish him well. If he can get more money good on him, because as I doubt he'll be like Jason King or Matty Johns earning more post playing than he did as a footballer.

 

[t-ba]

Souths management held their breath when the news was announced but were relieved when they said “genuine reasons” would be considered.

"Souths" is a genuine reason.

 

[T-Boon]

I, for one, take all NRL crackdowns very seriously.

They cracked down on the play the ball a few years ago and it worked until the powers that be decided to intervene so that we have the tunnel ball we have now. Thanks Gould.

 

[Quicksilver]

It's a new contract.

Beyond the salary cap, where an argument of equalisation of the competition through competitive measures as a whole might hold up, restraining the earning potential of individuals within that cap would be very difficult to maintain.

Cannot see it holding up against a legal challenge.

All this talk of loyalty is annoying. They've got a decade tops unless they're freaks like Cam Smith to make the most money they ever will. I'm not happy that AFB left but as I said at the time that's football and I'll wish him well. If he can get more money good on him, because he's a pretty dense dude and I doubt he'll be like Jason King or Matty Johns earning more post playing than he did as a footballer.

These are all NRL rules though.They need to be able to police player eligibility.

And a release from the original contract would only be granted on the condition that a new deal can not exceed the old one.

The first club could hypothetically sue the second club and the player too.

 

[t-ba]

These are all NRL rules though.They need to be able to police player eligibility.

And a release from the original contract would only be granted on the condition that a new deal can not exceed the old one.

The first club could hypothetically sue the second club and the player too.

The NRL rules are all based on pretty shaky legal shit. Look at what a moron like Terry Hill did to the draft. Plenty of it is just operating on good faith under the hope a group like the RLPA doesn't take them to court.

Not sure a release clause can legally dictate the amount of money someone can earn if they are release from it. It's definitely not covered under anything like non-compete clauses for instance. I feel like that's an excessive restraint on trade but I haven't done anything related to contracts in like a decade so I can't be entirely sure.

 

[t-ba]

It's a bit annoying we don't have some kind of system of formalised transfer fees in the competition.

I reckon that could help with this stuff.

 

[Captain Apollo]

The NRL rules are all based on pretty shaky legal shit. Look at what a moron like Terry Hill did to the draft. Plenty of it is just operating on good faith under the hope a group like the RLPA doesn't take them to court.

Not sure a release clause can legally dictate the amount of money someone can earn if they are release from it. It's definitely not covered under anything like non-compete clauses for instance. I feel like that's an excessive restraint on trade but I haven't done anything related to contracts in like a decade so I can't be entirely sure.

The NRL may not be able to stop the player getting paid. However, the NRL could implement it by not registering the first year of the "new" contract, thus making the player ineligible to play.

 

[t-ba]

The NRL may not be able to stop the player getting paid. However, the NRL could implement it by not registering the first year of the "new" contract, thus making the player ineligible to play.

Yeah that's lawyer time.

 

[Captain Apollo]

It's a bit annoying we don't have some kind of system of formalised transfer fees in the competition.

I reckon that could help with this stuff.

Transfer fees are effectively illegal. Blame the Balmain Tigers and the NSWRL for that with what they did to Dennis Tutty in the 1968-1970 when they would not allow him to transfer to another team.

He sat out the 1969 and 1970 seasons whilst he fought the system in the courts as a restraint of trade.The NSWRL appealed the lower courts decisions, which ruled in Tutty's favour, to the High Court. It wasn't until 13 December 1971 before the High Court upheld the original courts decision and ruled the then transfer system invalid and a restraint of trade.

 

[t-ba]

Transfer fees are effectively illegal. Blame the Balmain Tigers and the NSWRL for that with what they did to Dennis Tutty in the 1968-1970 when they would not allow him to transfer to another team.

He sat out the 1969 and 1970 seasons whilst he fought the system in the courts as a restraint of trade.The NSWRL appealed the lower courts decisions, which ruled in Tutty's favour, to the High Court. It wasn't until 13 December 1971 before the High Court upheld the original courts decision and ruled the then transfer system invalid and a restraint of trade.

Yeah, that's annoying.

 

[jk13]

This reeks of favouritism towards the tigers

 

[Captain Apollo]

Yeah that's lawyer time.

Yes but if done that way it might be harder to over turn in court. Reason is because the ARLC had made it public what the penalty would be a club offered the contract trying to induce a player to bteak his existing contract, yet the player concerned would still get paid. Hence restraint of trade or un-necessary harshness tests would be unlikely to apply, whilst a court may uphold it as a deterrent to making offers to players to break an existing contract that would only penalise the offending party who offered the contract.