Galvin v the Tigers

[Bazal]

One thing that I think is a bit of undercurrent to all this DylBro, Galvin, DCE, Fogarty etc movement is that clubs are desperate to expansion proof their squads. I think this particular case is Isaac Moses down to a tee but I also think with two useless clubs in PNG and Perth on the horizon, managers are only going to push harder to take advantage of clubs wanting to shore up some star power before those clubs start making recruitment moves.

I disagree with the popular view that the telent isn't there to support these teams, which is probably a different chat, but the issue will be that there's plenty of base NRL level players to be scouted but the issue will be that there's much less game breaking talent to go around. So clubs will follow Newcastle's lead and pay big bucks with long deals for good players and then fill the rest cheaper, and managers are going to be fully on the front foot to get those deals done no matter what.

 

[Canard]

But they're not consenting to it.

Club Statement: Lachlan Galvin

We would like to announce that Lachlan Galvin will not be with the club beyond the 2026 season.

www.weststigers.com.au

Nowhere there does it say that. In fact, it says this:

It should be noted that the club has no intention of releasing Lachlan from his contract, and he has not requested this.

So no, there would still be a breach because they intend him to stay until the end of 2026, which means Nov 1, 2025 and before is a breach of anti tampering laws

You are misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about a release from his current contract.

The anti-tampering relates to his contract situation from 2027 onwards.

The Tigers have openly said he won't be at their club then, so I can't see any breach here.

This is all on my assumption(big) that the Tigers no longer care, beyond 2026.

 

[Canard]

So how do you fix that? By enforcing it. What is the purpose of a law unless you enforce it.

Its not as hard to prove as you might think and even if it is hard, they should attempt to enforce it and put Parra through the wringer. I know for a fact that the Tigers have significant circumstantial proof of Parra breaching the anti tampering laws wrt Galvin, at least enough to make the NRL ask Parramatta & Moses to answer some difficult questions. Even if you dont get a "conviction" it might be enough, with the threat of financial sanctions to make clubs think twice before doing it again.

The NFL do it very successfully and its no easier to prove over there than it would be here. In the NFL, Ryles comments last week would have been a breach and copped a fine.


Particularly if you can do it with no consequences.

The clubs will never push this though, as it would likely backfire on them during future recruitment.

It's like how Aussie politicians never really punish each side for corruption, unless it's something really criminal.

 

[Penrose Warrior]

You are misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about a release from his current contract.

The anti-tampering relates to his contract situation from 2027 onwards.

The Tigers have openly said he won't be at their club then, so I can't see any breach here.

This is all on my assumption(big) that the Tigers no longer care, beyond 2026.

I understand what you're saying, they have said they aren't going to have him past 2026, so who cares and certainly they now don't care (if that is what you're saying)

BUT...the wrinkle with that is, if there was zero contact with any other club before Nov 1, does Galvin turn down a $5m deal ($6m whatever it is) at the Tigers? I doubt it. He would need to know someone is already interested for that amount of money, and if he didn't, that's one bloody hell of a gamble.

Plus another poster said above that 8 weeks ago, Isaac Moses was only held up by $ in doing a deal...Dylan Brown goes, and all of a sudden it changes. Last year, apparently Shane Richardson sat down with the Galvins and they were happy to stay, with an upgrade on his deal.

I assume that the Tigers would care that clearly someone talked to Galvin/Moses before Nov 1, because it may have cost them a player.

Maybe they dodged a bullet, anyway. If Fainu comes on at a much cheaper rate, they might have a better deal and afford to buy experienced, professional quality elsewhere

 

[Bazal]

You are misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about a release from his current contract.

The anti-tampering relates to his contract situation from 2027 onwards.

The Tigers have openly said he won't be at their club then, so I can't see any breach here.

This is all on my assumption(big) that the Tigers no longer care, beyond 2026.

Rejecting the clubs deal is not the same as them giving him permission to speak to other clubs, though.