dogs accept compensation offer for SBW.

[ibeme]

I don't think they've done too badly in the end, given this could have been a hell of a lot more expensive and damaging to the game.

there ws more than $750k at stake though, there was a principal.
The mutts said SBW would never play again, league, union, soccer, backgammon. The NRL said they'd back the doggies.

When push comes to shove, Toulon asked what was the dogs price and the answer was there before they finished asking the question...

dog credibility at an all time low.

Mason/Anasta/Shrek will be pissing themselves.

Actually, Greenbourgh has always said that he was open for dialog with SBW and Toulon.

What they couldn't allow to happen was SBW walking out with no consequences. They had to pursue it in the courts at the very least to force SBW and Toulon to negotiate an outcome. That's what happened. They would have kept going through the courts until they got a result. Better that it happens now than hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs later.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

It sets a pretty dangerous precedent though. As long another club is willing to pay for a player (outside the NRL obviously) they can get them at any time.

Although it has avoid a pile of damaging media reports, it hasn't prevented the situation happening again.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

So by having his contract nulled, the Dogs have freed up 400k in their salary cap over the next 4 years as well as picking up an extra 750k which has paid the legal costs and given them a few hundred thou left over.

It`s not that simple. You have all these other players they`ve signed knowing that SBW will be a part of the team. They basically tried to build a team around him. All kinds of roster planning goes out the window, the Dogs can`t just find a similar backrower overnight, unless they steal someone mid-contract. Sounds familiar? Contracts allow teams to plan rosters years ahead. This kind of stuff just makes it impossible.

Plus there`s the sponsorship money which will certainly be affected by Sonny`s absence. This is a valid argument in court. Nobody is saying Sonny was getting his market value, but that is irrelevant cos Sonny knew exactly how much he signed for. That`s the discount a team gets when they sign an injury-prone player on such a long term deal.

If they had gone through the courts, their legal costs would also have been included in any damages the court would have decided on, at least that`s how things normally work.

 

[Eels Dude]

It sets a pretty dangerous precedent though. As long another club is willing to pay for a player (outside the NRL obviously) they can get them at any time.

Although it has avoid a pile of damaging media reports, it hasn't prevented the situation happening again.

Not really. The club doesn't have to agree to a financial settlement, and should this happen again that may not be the case.

 

[madunit]

I don't think they've done too badly in the end, given this could have been a hell of a lot more expensive and damaging to the game.

there ws more than $750k at stake though, there was a principal.
The mutts said SBW would never play again, league, union, soccer, backgammon. The NRL said they'd back the doggies.

I've no doubt about that. I completely agree.

When push comes to shove, Toulon asked what was the dogs price and the answer was there before they finished asking the question...

dog credibility at an all time low.

Mason/Anasta/Shrek will be pissing themselves.

I think the Dogs were in a situation where they were just going to be happy to have it all finished with. Sure they could have demanded and more, and may have actually got it, but in the end I believe they did what was best for them and the game by taking what was offered, closing the issue and letting everyone to move on. Surely dragging the issue out is only going to cause more damage and more expense to all parties, SBW, Dogs and NRL.

Who would want that? What the NRL and clubs need to do now is amend the contracts to make them harder to get out of.

 

[Day of Rockening]

Mate, if I felt the need to read a complete post of yours that had more than one sentence I'd kill myself.

Take it elsewhere, we're full up of stupid already.

wow. i felt the power - fleetingly. makes you a powder puff girl

now DOR makes like EA and points his finger, crying like EA and throwing a tantrum "you're full of stupid, EA"

you write funny posts EA....

NEXT!!!

 

[eastsrule]

If it went to trial, could the courts actually stop SBW playing RU in France?

What happens then? The Bulldogs could try and bring a player back that doesn't want to be there.

Instead of talking about measures that can be taken to prevent this from happening again. People are talking about SBW being made an example of and for any consequences to be seen as a deterrent.

What an excellent thing to do. Make players feel like the clubs perceive them as a piece of meat.

Instead of trying to improve the situation for players and the game, the approach some are suggesting (based purely on the concept that the game is bigger than the player [which is true, no player is bigger than rugby league, but obviously some players are bigger than the NRL]) to deter other players from doing it is just going to make more players disillusioned with the NRL and their clubs.

Look at why SBW was leaving. Of course Khoder and Mundine were big influences. But he made the decision himself and he consulted his father. And some of the reasons he gave in the interview are legitimate reasons to be unhappy and to want out.

 

[Tap Twist Snap]

Pretty poor effort for the dogs. They should have got the value of his remaining contract as a minimum. There will be plenty more players leaving mid-contract if this is the way other clubs are going to handle it.

 

[madunit]

they did get the value, his contract is cancelled so they have his 400k back in their salary cap.

 

[eastsrule]

they did get the value, his contract is cancelled so they have his 400k back in their salary cap.

Another good point. You're on fire madunit.

 

[Tap Twist Snap]

I know logic is beyond some people around here so maths isn't going to be their strong point either but 4 years at 400 is 1.6mill. Unless SBW shelled out for their legal costs so far, which the dogs would not have incured unless he did what he did, in reality they have got nothing out of it. How is getting 750 grand the value of his contract? Who cares about how much cap is free because of it. If half of a team decide to walk out what good is it to the club to have a fist full of cash and no players to sign. It's not like players of the quality of SBW come along every year and request 5 year contracts.

 

[dallymessenger]

lol, if he is full of sh*t, where does that leave the NRL and the dogs ?

overflowing ??

yeah mate the dogs had a contracted player walk out on a midnight flight to france.

a french union club took him even though he was contracted to an NRL club and yet the dogs are in the wrong.
:lol:

its typical actions from the vichies and their apologists.

 

[dallymessenger]

Maybe they could have.

Most Rugby League supporters will think that money is a cop-out by the Dogs.

What do you think?

Wait, I don't care what you think and neither should anyone else here.

By the way, why don't you tell everyone who the "Easts" are in your nic?

Just so there's no doubt that you're not a troll, of course. *cough, cough*

you shouldve asked this question to a RL fan mate.

 

[Bulldog Force]

$750,000??? Man we should get what we were owed for the rest of his contract - $1,600,000

 

[dallymessenger]

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

 

[dallymessenger]

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.

agreed.

the NRL should now look at making money from transfer fees given the weak response theyve dished up

 

[madunit]

I know logic is beyond some people around here so maths isn't going to be their strong point either but 4 years at 400 is 1.6mill.

And because his contract is now cancelled, the dogs still have that money.

Unless SBW shelled out for their legal costs so far, which the dogs would not have incured unless he did what he did, in reality they have got nothing out of it.

The 750k he is paying will cover the costs and then some.

How is getting 750 grand the value of his contract?

Because the cap space he was taking up is now free, the club only paid him for this season.

Who cares about how much cap is free because of it.

The Dogs people certainly do. It'd be worse if they had to pay him out in full while he was playing for another code in another country on more money.

If half of a team decide to walk out what good is it to the club to have a fist full of cash and no players to sign.

Are they going to walk out? You're jumping to a conclusion that has no basis for validity.

It's not like players of the quality of SBW come along every year and request 5 year contracts.

That may be so, but it takes more than one player to build a successful team. This year the Dogs put all their luck into the hands of Sonny. As you can see since his departure, my point stands very true. The Bulldogs are in a great position to rebuild and shake off the tag that has been with them in the past few seasons by having a completely new look line up. It is a time of propserity for the reputation of the Dogs, and that's a good thing. A good reputation brings good players and even better sponsors, just look at the Tigers in 2003 compared to the Tigers of today for a modern day example.

 

[Tap Twist Snap]

The point of the hypothetical situation about half a team leaving could well come true, not jumping to a conclusion a valid hypothetical situation considering the current climate. If I was running a french union club I'd be knocking on the storms door offering slater, inglis and the like the big chance to make the move. That would devastated that club. The other points all stand true as you are looking at football players as an expense not an asset. SBW was the biggest asset the dogs had and they are not likely to be able to replace him anytime soon no matter how much money they have saved by not paying him.

 

[madunit]

The point of the hypothetical situation about half a team leaving could well come true, not jumping to a conclusion a valid hypothetical situation considering the current climate.

Considering there's been no indication that such a thing would happen, your hypothetical is a long way off. Now I'm pretty certain that the overwhelming majority of Rugby League players, marquee ones included, are willing to say no to the big money to stay in Rugby League. If not, then instances similar to that of SBW's would have happened several times before now and moreso since. But that hasn't happened, at all. Thus, you are jumping to conclusions.

If I was running a french union club I'd be knocking on the storms door offering slater, inglis and the like the big chance to make the move.

Doesn't mean they would accept.

That would devastated that club.

Maybe so, but players change clubs all the time to join other league clubs, yet they still all survive. These players going to a different code is no different.

The other points all stand true as you are looking at football players as an expense not an asset.

No, I'm looking at it realistically.

SBW was the biggest asset the dogs had and they are not likely to be able to replace him anytime soon no matter how much money they have saved by not paying him.

See, you and everyone else don't know if that statement is true or not. You never know when the next big thing will pop up. The dogs now have rid themselves of all players who have over time, given them plenty of negative publicity.

This in itself makes them less of a risk, image wise to potential sponsors. With a positive image and big name sponsors on their side, players won't hesitate to join them. SBW will be replaced by a handful of good players to make up for his departure. And with a handful of good players, it creates team unity, depth and consistency.

As I've said, Have a look at how the dogs have performed since he left, they've been getting belted.

That won't happen next year if they are able to buy another one or two good regular first graders in key positions.

I'm certain that SBW departure will turn out to be a godsend for the dogs.

 

[Bengal]

The 750k he is paying will cover the costs and then some.

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?

Are they going to walk out? You're jumping to a conclusion that has no basis for validity.

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.

That may be so, but it takes more than one player to build a successful team. This year the Dogs put all their luck into the hands of Sonny. As you can see since his departure, my point stands very true. The Bulldogs are in a great position to rebuild and shake off the tag that has been with them in the past few seasons by having a completely new look line up.

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! They were 'building on' whats come before them. This point should not be lost. The have gone backwards, not forwards. Supporters of both the doggies and Rugby League in general have a right to feel aggrieved.

Considering there's been no indication that such a thing would happen, your hypothetical is a long way off. Now I'm pretty certain that the overwhelming majority of Rugby League players, marquee ones included, are willing to say no to the big money to stay in Rugby League. If not, then instances similar to that of SBW's would have happened several times before now and moreso since. But that hasn't happened, at all. Thus, you are jumping to conclusions.

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


.