Discussion in 'NRL' started by TheDalek079, Apr 22, 2020.
You can take that to the boat! I mean bank. The bank...
that’s with the consent all parties. You can’t just tear up a contract for a player and make him a free agent because his club has broken the rules. You could force the club to offer to pay him out or put him on the market with his agreement but if he says no then his contract stands. Not to mention decimating a club in this way is bad business for the nrl, hence why it doesn’t happen. Though eels fans might wish their numpties had all been cleared out lol
The NRL should have made each and every one of their contracts null and void. Then, every player was a free agent. However, if a player wasn't then picked up for the same value that their scam contract at Melbourne was worth, Melbourne had to pay the difference. Who cares if they then are playing at 1m under the salary cap. We've seen it plenty of times recently with teams like the Tigers and Manly.
Failing that, then any contract that was signed under false pretenses (ie, at a time when Melbourne were already over the cap and had no legal recourse to actually offer a player a contract, like Smith), they should have been made null and void. But again, Melbourne made to pay any difference in contract value.
I remember there was talk at the time about Smith leaving, and perhaps going to the Titans. Who knows what either club would have become had that happened? All I know is that, in my opinion, there will be no legitimacy to that club until anybody and everybody involved in this scam is gone.
It's also why I am of the belief that the NRL should directly pay the players. The NRL provides 100% of the salary cap anyway. If the NRL paid the players, no player could then claim to not know about illegal payments.
Agree with the NRL paying the players, though you'd still get some clubs trying to fiddle the TPA's and the nrl has been very careful to keep players distanced from cap cheating.
Your way they would have nowhere to hide and the NRL doesn't want that. Your suggestion re clubs paying players the gap in contract would likely send some clubs broke, and the NRL doesn't want that either, not to mention usually teh cheating has been discovered some period after the event. Manly and Cronulla spring to mind in regards to going under if they had to put their squad on open market and had to pay any top ups. Would be an interesting exercise though.
We should all celebrate the storms ability to overcome this adverse period in their short history and continue to maintain a squad that has dominated the NRL for a long time and kept NRL relevant beyond its two state mentality.
Or the reigning premiers that got knocked out by Melbourne in week 1 of the finals.
Neither Parra '09 nor Manly '07 deserve to be premiers.
There's been a stench there since 1947
I think Manly 07 have a way better case than Parra 09.
Agree, they did finish runners up. But it has to be a blanket rule for all instances so I'm willing to forego a Manly premiership so that Parra's drought continues. Who knows what would have happened in '07 anyway? Manly may have still shat the bed. Thankfully it built the premise for '08.
Separate names with a comma.