Non-eels footy stuff

[Poupou Escobar]

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

The RLPA is trying to ward off bad press and fan reactions to their players. If there is a CO and the club reports it then doesn't activate it, the fans won't turn on the player. But when it's a PO (announced as such by the club, like ours did) and then the player decides not to take it up, it's the player who cops the fan backlash. The club has demonstrated its commitment, and the player hasn't. This is what the RLPA is trying to avoid.

Clubs only get backlash when fans assume the player would've happily signed the exact same contract with extra years rather than options years in the player's favour. As though players/managers don't even consider the opportunity cost of lost future earnings due to signing long contracts that turn out to be unders.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

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.

I doubt the PO would stop clubs negotiating with players when they have a year to run, because the PO isn't part of the calculation until/unless it is activated.