Jarryd Hayne to the NFL!

[WaznTheGreat]

So it comes down to whether Hayne is a man of his word.


We're f*cked.

Hayne is never coming back to the NRL whether or not he makes it in the NFL

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The club had no leg to stand on as far as letting him go. Seward said as much on Triple M.

So the lifetime agreement is really just to appease the fans (maybe sponsors too). Hayne mightn't be allowed to play for another club if he comes back for 2015 ( duration of his previous contract) but after that what's stopping him?

 

[WaznTheGreat]

Hayne ain't ever coming back to the NRL,its over,move on.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

If there was no agreement that he wouldn't return why would the club release him?

The club would have all the leverage in the world in that scenario.

I'd reckon they have all the legal right but considering Hayne's status, not all the leverage.

 

[The Colonel]

If there was no agreement that he wouldn't return why would the club release him?

The club would have all the leverage in the world in that scenario.

Only until the end of 2015.

He comes off contract 31st October 2015. After that he is a free agent UNLESS an agreement was signed for him to come back - in a similar mode to that when we signed Hopoate. I hope this is the case. Otherwise he is available to the highest bidder...

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

How many times do I have to explain it to you f**kwits? It is perfectly plausible that a written contract exists.

1) JH says 'I want out of the final year of my deal to go and play NFL'
2) The club says, 'we'll release you from your existing obligations if you sign a written agreement giving us the first option on your services should you wish to play in the NRL again'
3) JH say 'Ok' and writes 'Jarryd' on the contract in crayon, with his the fingers on his other hand crossed behind his back.
4) The club counter sign the deal. Voila

Now, maybe nothing of the sort happened....but there's nothing strange about it.

 

[whall15]

Only until the end of 2015.

He comes off contract 31st October 2015. After that he is a free agent UNLESS an agreement was signed for him to come back - in a similar mode to that when we signed Hopoate. I hope this is the case. Otherwise he is available to the highest bidder...

That was my point. The club would have the leverage of forcing him to honour his contract in order to get him to sign an agreement stipulating that he'd be prohibited from playing for any club in the NRL bar Parra.

 

[Kornstar]

I'd say our club doesn't think he will make it and doesn't want him signing with another team on his return.
Why burn that bridge if you don't need to?

Hayne is too good to do that. I still want him playing for my team.
Even more than that, I don't want him playing against us.

Considering some of the nuffies we've let go of over the years that have tore us a new one, imagine what Hayne would do? Probably break individual records in a game by any player ever!

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

How many times do I have to explain it to you f**kwits? It is perfectly plausible that a written contract exists.

1) JH says 'I want out of the final year of my deal to go and play NFL'
2) The club says, 'we'll release you from your existing obligations if you sign a written agreement giving us the first option on your services should you wish to play in the NRL again'
3) JH say 'Ok' and writes 'Jarryd' on the contract in crayon, with his the fingers on his other hand crossed behind his back.
4) The club counter sign the deal. Voila

Now, maybe nothing of the sort happened....but there's nothing strange about it.

:lol:

 

[El Diablo]

i wouldn't want the dog back

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I've often wondered about signatures for contracts. I mean, how often does someone check that the mark you've made is actually your 'signature'? Of course, you may get done for something like fraud later on but it just seems like such an antiquated system.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I've often wondered about signatures for contracts. I mean, how often does someone check that the mark you've made is actually your 'signature'? Of course, you may get done for something like fraud later on but it just seems like such an antiquated system.

That's one reason why they are typically 'witnessed'.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

That's one reason why they are typically 'witnessed'.

So it's irrelevant whether it's your signature or not, as the JP or whomever can testify later that you were there and did in fact 'sign' a contract? Oh well, back to the drawing board...

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

So it's irrelevant whether it's your signature or not, as the JP or whomever can testify later that you were there and did in fact 'sign' a contract? Oh well, back to the drawing board...

No, it's not irrelevant. Witnesses to a contract or other document are just an additional level of control. There's typically plenty of contextual evidence available to remove the 'I didn't sign it, someone else did' excuse.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

No, it's not irrelevant. Witnesses to a contract or other document are just an additional level of control. There's typically plenty of contextual evidence available to remove the 'I didn't sign it, someone else did' excuse.

OK. What I was thinking of was not the 'someone else did' excuse but that no one actually 'signed', and therefore there is no contract. Along the lines of obtaining benefits by deception ie, when I made that mark on the paper I had no intention of entering into a contract. Has anyone ever tested that defence?

 

[Parra]

Moving up through the grades in the same organisation is completely different to pissing off overseas without notice and ditching the club who had one fifth of their salary cap invested in you. This is not the way things work in the real world. I'm disappointed that our club has been so gracious in letting him go. As others have said we should have done what the Dogs did with SBW. That's exactly what someone who's not willing to honour a legally binding contract deserves.

He has honoured his contract. They have clauses in contracts that explain what occurs should certain events happen. Him not playing next year would be one of those events. A contract is not some sort of agreed servitude. It doesn't force or compel behaviour. It just sets a framework of common understanding.

 

[hineyrulz]

He has honoured his contract. They have clauses in contracts that explain what occurs should certain events happen. Him not playing next year would be one of those events. A contract is not some sort of agreed servitude. It doesn't force or compel behaviour. It just sets a framework of common understanding.

If he honoured his contract he would be playing for Parra next season. Simple as that, everything else you have typed is waffle.

 

[Tony Bongo]

If he honoured his contract he would be playing for Parra next season. Simple as that, everything else you have typed is waffle.

Exactly!

 

[TheParraboy]

If he honoured his contract he would be playing for Parra next season. Simple as that, everything else you have typed is waffle.

And Sam Burgess would be at Souths for the next two years as well..

 

[Delboy]

Sam Burges at least gave Souffs notice so they could use the cap space, the selfish merkin that f**ked us over left us with little room to move

Souffs signed Stewart and was able to reorganise ever cap with plenty of time