Knock-on Effect NSW Cup - Eels Team

[Gronk]

"In a selfless move, Hodgson took up his option earlier in the 2023 season which earned him a salary worth $350,000.

That number would have been higher if the club had instead taken up his option and extended his contract for a further season."

Hodgson’s NRL career to end as medical retirement looms for English star

Hodgson’s NRL career to end as medical retirement looms for English star

www.foxsports.com.au

#selfless

Yes, that was a variation to the standard option. It wasn’t by the purest of definitions a MO. The club had a CO at a certain $ value and the player had a PO at a lesser $ value.

Outlier circumstances do not define the general norms.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yes, that was a variation to the standard option. It wasn’t by the purest of definitions a MO. The club had a CO at a certain $ value and the player had a PO at a lesser $ value.

Outlier circumstances do not define the general norms.

I agree it was a combination PO and CO, but it was described as a MO.

It's the only definition of a mutual option that makes sense and has any legal purpose. You don't need a MO to discuss extending a year. There is zero purpose to it. Contracts are legally binding, not calendar reminders to have a chat in a couple of years.

 

[the phantom menace]

Yes, that was a variation to the standard option. It wasn’t by the purest of definitions a MO. The club had a CO at a certain $ value and the player had a PO at a lesser $ value.

I actually think the above concept and process is inherent in the "provisions" of a MO, and the discussions of whether a contract is extended and on what exact terms.

I just can't think of any other basis upon which these MO discussions to mutually agree would or could occur - and be officially registered with the NRL as an option year (rather than just standard negotiations to sign a new "extension" contract).

 

[Gronk]

I agree it was a combination PO and CO, but it was described as a MO.

It's the only definition of a mutual option that makes sense and has any legal purpose. You don't need a MO to discuss extending a year. There is zero purpose to it. Contracts are legally binding, not calendar reminders to have a chat in a couple of years.

I told you before, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't correct.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Yes, that was a variation to the standard option. It wasn’t by the purest of definitions a MO. The club had a CO at a certain $ value and the player had a PO at a lesser $ value.

Outlier circumstances do not define the general norms.

It is, however, sort of consistent with how MO's effectively work in baseball. While the strike price for the option is the same for both the player and the club, there is usually a 'buyout' attached, and so if the player wants to exercise a MO and the club doesn't, the club typically pays a buyout fee (nothing like full salary, but material).