The following article is from the Fox Sports website (source: https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...i/news-story/5512fed1f8b9482e10727970a281f365) -
"The new rule being considered by the ARLC would separate players who are seeking a release for genuine reasons and those who are eyeing an upgraded deal elsewhere." Yay !! More room for inconsistency and grey areas for the NRL to use to favour certain clubs.
How about if you sign the merkin, you stay for the duration. If you still want out, sit out the duration unpaid. At least tallis was man enough to do that
Souths management held their breath when the news was announced but were relieved when they said “genuine reasons” would be considered.
It's a new contract. Beyond the salary cap, where an argument of equalisation of the competition through competitive measures as a whole might hold up, restraining the earning potential of individuals within that cap would be very difficult to maintain. Cannot see it holding up against a legal challenge. All this talk of loyalty is annoying. They've got a decade tops unless they're freaks like Cam Smith to make the most money they ever will. I'm not happy that AFB left but as I said at the time that's football and I'll wish him well. If he can get more money good on him, because as I doubt he'll be like Jason King or Matty Johns earning more post playing than he did as a footballer.
They cracked down on the play the ball a few years ago and it worked until the powers that be decided to intervene so that we have the tunnel ball we have now. Thanks Gould.
These are all NRL rules though.They need to be able to police player eligibility. And a release from the original contract would only be granted on the condition that a new deal can not exceed the old one. The first club could hypothetically sue the second club and the player too.
The NRL rules are all based on pretty shaky legal shit. Look at what a moron like Terry Hill did to the draft. Plenty of it is just operating on good faith under the hope a group like the RLPA doesn't take them to court. Not sure a release clause can legally dictate the amount of money someone can earn if they are release from it. It's definitely not covered under anything like non-compete clauses for instance. I feel like that's an excessive restraint on trade but I haven't done anything related to contracts in like a decade so I can't be entirely sure.
It's a bit annoying we don't have some kind of system of formalised transfer fees in the competition. I reckon that could help with this stuff.
The NRL may not be able to stop the player getting paid. However, the NRL could implement it by not registering the first year of the "new" contract, thus making the player ineligible to play.
Transfer fees are effectively illegal. Blame the Balmain Tigers and the NSWRL for that with what they did to Dennis Tutty in the 1968-1970 when they would not allow him to transfer to another team. He sat out the 1969 and 1970 seasons whilst he fought the system in the courts as a restraint of trade.The NSWRL appealed the lower courts decisions, which ruled in Tutty's favour, to the High Court. It wasn't until 13 December 1971 before the High Court upheld the original courts decision and ruled the then transfer system invalid and a restraint of trade.
Yes but if done that way it might be harder to over turn in court. Reason is because the ARLC had made it public what the penalty would be a club offered the contract trying to induce a player to bteak his existing contract, yet the player concerned would still get paid. Hence restraint of trade or un-necessary harshness tests would be unlikely to apply, whilst a court may uphold it as a deterrent to making offers to players to break an existing contract that would only penalise the offending party who offered the contract.
