dogs accept compensation offer for SBW.

[madunit]

Does this amount put both the Bulldogs and the NRL back in the position it was prior to the SBW fiasco is the ultimate question?

They are without him, that's the only difference.

Cuts both ways. You can't say with absolute certainty that events like, or similar to, this (think parties associated to League, not just the current players) won't happen either.

I agree, but the fact that there has been no indication whatsoever of a mass walkout happening, it's a bit of a stretch to bring it up as a possibility now when it's not even likely at the present point in time.

First off, do not underestimate the value one marquee player can have on building a successful team. Second and most importantly, the key word in all this is "rebuild". The Bulldogs were not in a "rebuilding" phase!

I think that's debatable. Look at the list of players the Dogs have bought for next season, all regular first graders, some with rep honours. It looks very much to me like rebuilding.

They were 'building on' whats come before them. This point should not be lost.

They were building a team with the knowledge that SBW would be there. Sure it puts a dent in the sides preperations for next season, but I don't think it will affect the Bulldogs all that much given the squad they've assembled for next season already. Now they have more cash to sign up another 1 or 2 big name players.

The have gone backwards, not forwards.

Again, I think thats debatable.

Supporters of both the doggies and Rugby League in general have a right to feel aggrieved.

Now you see, I don't think this would have been anywhere near as big an issue is SBW went to another NRL club. Players jump ship all the time, whether contracted or not. Clubs are aware of this.

Unless you have a crustal ball, then you're assuming as much as anyone else here.

Where did I predict anything? I made a point that if the French Rugby Offers were that unresistable, then players would have been leaving the game before now and would be signing contracts as we speak in much bigger numbers than 1-2 a season (which has been about the average over the last 2 years I'm guessing).

They may be taking big name players, but its no different to the ESL taking them, and people haven't gone up in arms as much over them taking our stars as they have over the SBW issue.

 

[bartman]

A few people have mentioned the Dogs losing sponsorship with SBW gone - has this actually happened? Or is it more Nasser/SBW fluff about how big Sonny's market value is?

As a convicted drink driver, I would have thought SBW's personal sponsorship value in deals done with the club to be about nil, and can't forsee any club sponsor saying they won't pay up just because SBW isn't around to (occasionally) take the field?

 

[Bengal]

They are without him, that's the only difference.

No, that is not the "only" difference. Both the Bulldogs and Rugby League have gone backwards thanks to all this. Both the Bulldogs and the NRL have lost a marquee player and everything else that entails.

I agree, but the fact that there has been no indication whatsoever of a mass walkout happening, it's a bit of a stretch to bring it up as a possibility now when it's not even likely at the present point in time.

Point is, unless you know with absolute certainty what you say, then you're doing little more than you accuse others of doing - jumping to conclusions.

I think that's debatable. Look at the list of players the Dogs have bought for next season, all regular first graders, some with rep honours. It looks very much to me like rebuilding.

The Bulldogs were "building on", not "rebuilding" from. There's a huge difference between adding to and rebuilding from.

Sure it puts a dent in the sides preperations for next season, but I don't think it will affect the Bulldogs all that much given the squad they've assembled for next season already.

Agree with the 'dent', otherwise I see more assumptions. Pretty ease to make those things isn't it!

Now they have more cash to sign up another 1 or 2 big name players.

Unless this is what they wanted from the get go, then this is not the point.

Now you see, I don't think this would have been anywhere near as big an issue is SBW went to another NRL club. Players jump ship all the time, whether contracted or not. Clubs are aware of this.

Its an issue - that's my point. An issue you're doing your very best to down play.

Where did I predict anything? I made a point that if the French Rugby Offers were that unresistable, then players would have been leaving the game before now and would be signing contracts as we speak in much bigger numbers than 1-2 a season (which has been about the average over the last 2 years I'm guessing).

You made a point devoid of fact. You simply expressed an opinion. Point is, if you're going to accuse others of jumping to conclusions then you better make sure that all of your opinions are swimming in fact otherwise you'll open yourself up to the same behavior you dished out on others.

They may be taking big name players, but its no different to the ESL taking them, and people haven't gone up in arms as much over them taking our stars as they have over the SBW issue.

There's a world of difference. One shouldn't need to point this out.

.

 

[Miller was a legend]

wow, reading this thread its really easy to separate the RL fans from the vichy apologists on here.

$750,000 is a pathetic figure.

given toulon were so desperate to get him playing, they shouldve made them sweat a bit more for a week or so.

see if SBW played, threaten contempt of court.

had they waited a week, theyd have got at least 500,000 more.

when bargaining with someone, you never just accept the first offer

OMG I am finding this really hard to say..........ummmm cough cough... I agree with you Dally...OMG

 

[madunit]

No, that is not the "only" difference. Both the Bulldogs and Rugby League have gone backwards thanks to all this. Both the Bulldogs and the NRL have lost a marquee player and everything else that entails.

And now that this whole affair is over, we can start moving forwards. No point for NRL or the Dogs to look back and wonder. Thats not going to solve anything.

Point is, unless you know with absolute certainty what you say, then you're doing little more than you accuse others of doing - jumping to conclusions.

How am I jumping to conclusions by stating that there has been no indication of a mass walkout. Do you know of evidence contrary to this?

The Bulldogs were "building on", not "rebuilding" from. There's a huge difference between adding to and rebuilding from.

There's a difference, I agree. But it's not huge.

Agree with the 'dent', otherwise I see more assumptions. Pretty ease to make those things isn't it!

It was my opinion. Nothing more.

Unless this is what they wanted from the get go, then this is not the point.

Again, looking backwards isn't going to fix anything here. The Dog's have the ball in their court now and they have to move forward and carry on.

Its an issue - that's my point. An issue you're doing your very best to down play.

I'm merely voicing my opinion about how this issue is now resolved. The Dogs should be happy it's settled and start moving on. The NRL should work with clubs to amend contracts to make them binding.

You made a point devoid of fact. You simply expressed an opinion.

An opinion doesn't require a fact. It's an opinion.

Point is, if you're going to accuse others of jumping to conclusions then you better make sure that all of your opinions are swimming in fact otherwise you'll open yourself up to the same behavior you dished out on others.

No. I, and everyone else are allowed to express their opinion for or against anything. So long as it's their opinion then no facts need to be put forward.
And if they did, then I'd like to see where there's evidence supporting the notion that there is going to be a heap of players leaving.

There's a world of difference. One shouldn't need to point this out.

No, there isn't. It's the same thing.

.[/quote]

 

[Miller was a legend]

So the way I understand it Doggies will get $750k plus the contract paid out. If thats the case they have done the right thing IMO

 

[madunit]

thats exactly whats happened. They got a pretty decent deal. Admittedly they could have got more had they continued with the legal action, but at the end of the day they did what was right for themselves and the game.

Now everyone can move forward.

 

[screeny]

SBW's contract was, I think, 400k per season.
This mornings papers state Greenberg putting A$300k on the legal bill so far. So they saved a season, and a second hand Pajero.

Also interesting is the simmering tension between Greenberg and Gallop over the NRL's assurance that they would cover the legal costs, Sounds like someone higher up the News Ltd food chain has vetoed Gallop. Canterbury probably had no choice.

Result:

• NRL's guarantee to help Sydney clubs survive is hollow:
• Inglis has the green light to skip League aka SBW
• A Rugby League contract is worthless.

A very sad day for the code indeed. Still, if this doesn't galvanise the beginnings of a coup against the evil News emipre running our code, I dunno what will.

Either that, or they will introduce line outs and body fat for the 2009 season.

That's pretty astutde and, I think, sound analysis of this miserable outcome.

 

[Miller was a legend]

That's pretty astutde and, I think, sound analysis of this miserable outcome.

Am I missing something? If the contract is being paid out plus $750,000 then surely that is a decent out come. If Ingliss wanted to leave I doubt he would do it the same way as SBW but even if he wanted to go while under contract the message is that the club or Ingliss would have to be prepared to pay out his contract as a minimum. How does that mean the contract is worthless? Surely it represents the value of the contract.

If any player doesn't want to stay in the NRL I have no problem with them leaving, just do it the right way. At end of contract or by negotiation with their club.

IMO this is a positive outcome for RL and the legal status of a players contract.

 

[Dogaholic]

sanity prevails. Everyone wins.

No, the next SBW wont think twice. NRL lose

 

[Miller was a legend]

No, the next SBW wont think twice. NRL lose

Huh? SBW or anyone. If they don't want to play what use are they to the team, the club or the competition. Yes play out the contract or negotiate out of it, what's wrong with that? Using Cronulla as an example, if bird wanted out and the club agreed because they know they wont get the best out of him, then so be it. i'd rather have 17 guys playing that want to be there then 16 trying and one not putting in.

SBW has hurt the dogs in the way he went about this, but I believe the Dogs will bounce back stronger next year.

 

[The Gambler]

My view is that the NRL do not anticipate any other player to stoop to the level SBW did and just walk out on a contract. Whether this is the right view or not I am not sure.

I am not convinced that all the players understand that what SBW did was a scum act and simply should not be tolerated.

Because the NRL dont think any other player is going to do a SBW, they have decided to not make an example of his action through the legal system. They have told the Bulldogs this thus the offer was accepted.

 

[Miller was a legend]

Good post Gambler. Time to get on with footy

 

[cherry pie]

matt king is on a 4 year contract surely the bulldogs wouldnt try to tap him up would they????????????? anyway hes happy at a club that looks after its players http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/3443/1/Matt-King-on-rugby-and-marriage/Page1.html!

 

[Bengal]

And now that this whole affair is over, we can start moving forwards. No point for NRL or the Dogs to look back and wonder. Thats not going to solve anything.

Introspection is a valuable tool for anyone. I see you inhibiting this process.

How am I jumping to conclusions by stating that there has been no indication of a mass walkout. Do you know of evidence contrary to this?

I'm not the one suggesting that certain events are likely/unlikely to happen - that's your game, henceforth, you're the one that needs evidence to back up your views otherwise, and again, you are doing the exact same that you accuse others of doing - making assumptions (jumping to conclusions).

Again, looking backwards isn't going to fix anything here. The Dog's have the ball in their court now and they have to move forward and carry on.

Any attempt to move forward should include acknowledging the past, otherwise, they (and anyone for that matter) are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

An opinion doesn't require a fact. It's an opinion.

Correct, which leaves your opinions subject to the same treatment you dished out to others. Rather ironic that.

And if they did, then I'd like to see where there's evidence supporting the notion that there is going to be a heap of players leaving.

And thats all I'm asking of you. You dismiss a "hypothetical" based on little to no evidence and then espouse an opposing view based on what exactly? Take a look in the mirror the next time you accuse someone of jumping to conclusions is all I'm saying.

No, there isn't. It's the same thing.

Dan Carter moving to France to play Rugby is a big story. Dan Carter moving to Sydney to play Rugby League would be a bigger story again, based on the fact that a code switch has taken place on top of a move elsewhere. There's your difference between a move to the ESL and a move to French Rugby Union.


.

 

[cherry pie]

2 faced

 

[macavity]

300k in legals - what a f**king joke.

 

[Eels Dude]

My view is that the NRL do not anticipate any other player to stoop to the level SBW did and just walk out on a contract. Whether this is the right view or not I am not sure.

I am not convinced that all the players understand that what SBW did was a scum act and simply should not be tolerated.

Because the NRL dont think any other player is going to do a SBW, they have decided to not make an example of his action through the legal system. They have told the Bulldogs this thus the offer was accepted.

I believe the fact that Toulon have backed down and are willing to pay the Bulldogs, means that other French Rugby clubs realise they'll have to do the same if they entice a player to break a contract. So not only are they big wages for a player, but they're having to pay out a club as well. The situation is ideal, but at least French Rugby know the NRL and clubs are serious about this kind of stuff.

 

[screeny]

Am I missing something? If the contract is being paid out plus $750,000 then surely that is a decent out come. If Ingliss wanted to leave I doubt he would do it the same way as SBW but even if he wanted to go while under contract the message is that the club or Ingliss would have to be prepared to pay out his contract as a minimum. How does that mean the contract is worthless? Surely it represents the value of the contract.

If any player doesn't want to stay in the NRL I have no problem with them leaving, just do it the right way. At end of contract or by negotiation with their club.

IMO this is a positive outcome for RL and the legal status of a players contract.

Well either you're missing something or I am. I thought the compensation totalled $750,000, but you're saying that's on top of the full amount of the contract i.e. $1.6M?

I've just re-read the story on the SMH and it doesn't make any mention of the remainder of the five-year contract being paid out, just a flat $750K, which, as I said, is a miserable outcome.

 

[The Gambler]

I believe the fact that Toulon have backed down and are willing to pay the Bulldogs, means that other French Rugby clubs realise they'll have to do the same if they entice a player to break a contract. So not only are they big wages for a player, but they're having to pay out a club as well. The situation is ideal, but at least French Rugby know the NRL and clubs are serious about this kind of stuff.

Thats right - there is no way that ANY club can afford to pay out NRL sides when they entice a player out of a contract. Simply not worth it.