Non-eels footy stuff

[Gronk]

 

[emjaycee]

They should just report the contract term as agreed.

 

[Chipmunk]

They should just report the contract term as agreed.

Is that including or excluding the Option?

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

The whole game is built on lies Gronklettstiltskin.

Why don’t they release Vlandys and the NRL executives terms and salaries?







No man left behind.

Good to see some solid bald In there too.

Sacking BA is crippling you guys

 

[emjaycee]

Is that including or excluding the Option?

An option isnt part of the contract term until/unless it is taken up, so excluding I guess.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

An option isnt part of the contract term until/unless it is taken up, so excluding I guess.

Depends how it’s worded.

The inclusion of the option is a term of a contract!

JL has a horrific option term in his favour, but we might not have signed him without it.

 

[Chipmunk]

Depends how it’s worded.

The inclusion of the option is a term of a contract!

JL has a horrific option term in his favour, but we might not have signed him without it.

So Luia essentially just has a 2 year deal.

 

[Chipmunk]

An option isnt part of the contract term until/unless it is taken up, so excluding I guess.

There is an issue around that one when a club could speak to the player. If it is say 2 years with a 2 year option, the world wouldn't know about the 2 year option and would start to negotiate after 1 year, before the club or player would need to decide to take up the option.

 

[the phantom menace]

I agree, don't report POs as part of a contract's duration - and clubs like ours are not offering them any more anyway.

However a CO should be reported as part of the duration - otherwise merkins look they they'll come off contract earlier than they actually (subject to the club activating their option) will - and that will cause all sorts of click bait and player-manager media shenanigans.

For MOs, it's tricky - probably should be the same reporting as the CO as above, since it's a extra year at the higher CO salary level if the club wants it. If club doesn't trigger then the lower PO salary level is up to the player if they wish to take it (instead of head elsewhere) so probably shouldn't get reported as an MO, but as a CO?

 

[emjaycee]

There is an issue around that one when a club could speak to the player. If it is say 2 years with a 2 year option, the world wouldn't know about the 2 year option and would start to negotiate after 1 year, before the club or player would need to decide to take up the option.

Clubs get sent the details of the options... just not made public. And club options can be listed, just not PO's.

 

[emjaycee]

Depends how it’s worded.

The inclusion of the option is a term of a contract!

JL has a horrific option term in his favour, but we might not have signed him without it.

Clubs get sent the details of the options... just not made public. And club options can be listed, just not PO's.

From the Herald article:

RPLA Statement - “Currently, all clubs can request an ‘off contract list’, which sets out the nature of options players have. To be clear, these are provided in the strictest of confidence. Frustratingly, this information has leaked to the media, resulting in commentary on our members’ private employment arrangements."

And further - "In line with the current CBA agreed between the NRL and players, player options cannot be publicly disclosed, including by clubs,” the RLPA said in a statement to this masthead.

“So, technically, announcements like the ones you mentioned would not include years that are player options. If and when an option is activated, that is only when they form part of the term of the employment agreement and can be disclosed publicly in accordance with the CBA.”

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

From the Herald article:

RPLA Statement - “Currently, all clubs can request an ‘off contract list’, which sets out the nature of options players have. To be clear, these are provided in the strictest of confidence. Frustratingly, this information has leaked to the media, resulting in commentary on our members’ private employment arrangements."

And further - "In line with the current CBA agreed between the NRL and players, player options cannot be publicly disclosed, including by clubs,” the RLPA said in a statement to this masthead.

“So, technically, announcements like the ones you mentioned would not include years that are player options. If and when an option is activated, that is only when they form part of the term of the employment agreement and can be disclosed publicly in accordance with the CBA.”

Well if they are not foreshadowed in the contract, if the player doesnt agree to the terms, then they constitute fresh agreements if and when they arise and are not true options or legally binding between club or player dont they?

if players don’t want these nefarious options mentioned they shouldn’t mention them.

But as a union man, yeah, rip ‘em down.

 

[Chipmunk]

Clubs get sent the details of the options... just not made public. And club options can be listed, just not PO's.

That still breaches the privacy of the player, which is the RLPAs argument...privacy.

 

[Chipmunk]

I agree, don't report POs as part of a contract's duration - and clubs like ours are not offering them any more anyway.

However a CO should be reported as part of the duration - otherwise merkins look they they'll come off contract earlier than they actually (subject to the club activating their option) will - and that will cause all sorts of click bait and player-manager media shenanigans.

For MOs, it's tricky - probably should be the same reporting as the CO as above, since it's a extra year at the higher CO salary level if the club wants it. If club doesn't trigger then the lower PO salary level is up to the player if they wish to take it (instead of head elsewhere) so probably shouldn't get reported as an MO, but as a CO?

You can't treat any option differently...they're all the same, it has to be activated.

 

[emjaycee]

You can't treat any option differently...they're all the same, it has to be activated.

I don't understand the RLPAs position on separating disclosure for PO's and CO's but I understand why they disclose PO's to other clubs... to stop pre-emptive negotiations.

 

[emjaycee]

That still breaches the privacy of the player, which is the RLPAs argument...privacy.

Not if it is treated as commercially confidential and covered under NDA's that no doubt exist.

 

[the phantom menace]

You can't treat any option differently...they're all the same, it has to be activated.

True, but this about about the publication of them on websites. I think you can separate which ones the NRL list on a website.

As above, years with COs can be published as 'under contract' (with an asterix) because they are part of the contract whenever the club chooses to activate it.

Years with a PO (and by extension the PO part of an MO) wouldn't be published/included in years a player is listed as tied to a club, as effectively the player is off contract unless they choose to trigger the PO (and to protect the player's contract confidentiality according to the RLPA). MOs are therefore published as COs only, also protecting the PO aspect of a player's contract confidentiality.

 

[Chipmunk]

Not if it is treated as commercially confidential and covered under NDA's that no doubt exist.

Individual players would still have to provide their consent for their private information to be disclosed to a third party. It couldn't just be at the discretion of the club.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yep. As I said, the problem isn't the player options, it's how the media reports them.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Is that including or excluding the Option?

The option isn't part of the term until it is activated. Just like the RLPA said.