Maybe. You would have to prove that a contract has been offered to incentivise a player to leave a club first. Another issue is if both the club and player agree to mutual termination, which they pretty much do all the time...
Player agents crying foul... If we can’t get our players to act like children to get out of contracts, what else are we to do...
It's swings and roundabouts. You will get a player sometimes and you will lose a player sometimes. Shit happens. Clubs often don't want a player anymore and offload them, release a player from their deal and they sign elsewhere. Could be for more money. Players get a better offer on the quiet and ask for a release. It happens, thing is, if a player is set on leaving, would the club still want a player that doesn't want to be there? Often this can be beneficial for both parties. Does the NRL really want to have a situation where a player is stuck at a club because the club doesn't want them, or they don't want to be there anymore, but forced to. Thats going to make for great rugby league.
V'landys and Abdo have already stated that negotiations will have to be had with the Players Association and the details are yet to be hammered out, whilst Clint Newton has said the RLPA are open to negotiations about it -
My preference would be to have player contracts to be with the NRL rather than with clubs. The club grant can then be removed (or reduced by $10M). In my mind then there is significantly more transparency with player salaries. Clubs would allocate how much of their allotted salary cap to contract each player. The NRL then has better ability to have conditions and control over player behavior and responsibilities - i.e. the nrl would sack a player over poor behavior and with someone smarter than me dealing with it it might stop 4 clubs suddenly lining up for him. Players could then transfer between clubs (subject to an agreement) and there is no need for a new contract. TPAs would still exist but other salary cap rorts would be more easily identifiable and punished as they would be separate payments to the player over and above the NRL payment.
That would not work. You would effectively turn the competition into the the NRL playing the NRL and not say Manly v Melbourne, or Saints v Souths. Thew players play for a club side, not the NRL. I mean you really then want "player x threw a game because the NRL wanted club y to win the game and make the finals" accusations? Also from a practical viewpoint how then would you "allocate" players to particular sides? Dictate by the NRL with it changing every year based on what the NRL want? Imagine having no fixed roster from year to year. The clubs would not want it, they'd veto any proposal from the ARLC if they tried to do it, and the RLPA would likely not want it either. I'm sorry but it is a bad idea as it is just impractical.
Of course the clubs and player wouldnt want it. Rich clubs can use the current system to pay players more even without even using TPAs because players contracts are unknown. Players would still negotiate and "sign" with clubs but hey would be paid by the nrl Instead of the nrl giving each club $13M every year they give the club $3M and the players $10M as per the agreements. Players are paid by the nrl now - it just goes through an extra set of hands via the club grant. Their contract needs to be registered with the nrl now. Everything a player does is a reflection on the nrl now. When the players wanted more money to be partners in the game did they go to their clubs? Instead of a contract being between the club and player with the nrl endorsing it, it is between the nrl and the player after being ratified by the club by allocating the same money to the player. The player would still be on a x year deal allocated to a club. Then nrl can then include codes of ethic and standards that impact on the nrl as a whole, not a single club who is willing to overlook certain things for star players. Why would players be throwing games based on that? As it is players can sign a year in advance and probably negotiate far earlier than that.
The NRL are quite happy with the current situation. This way they can hear all of the back and forward on salary cap and keep all of that at arms length, responding with their usual crap about how a player can go to a club for less etc etc. They can continue pretending that TPA's are all legit and not paid to players to coerce a player to sign with them. The NRL I am sure, does not want anything to do with all of this contract stuff.
Maybe the easier way to deal with it would be to flip it and say that clubs cant sign a contracted player for more money than their current contract. This puts the onus on the clubs not the players and their agents. Might be easier getting it over the line than having to deal with the RLPA. Or the other option would be that if Club A wants to sign a contracted player they have to pay a transfer fee to Club B equal to the players salary remaining on the contract.
Transfer fees are illegal where a player's contract has expired. However, I'm not so sure about the illegality of selling the remaining portion of a contract at an agreed value. The Poms do it.
Where you've got pressure being brought to bear to release a player who is under contract, it becomes a two edged sword.
Or the parties agree on a transfer fee, which has no connection to the existing contract, and which is counted in the salary cap (as a negative for the club receiving the fee). You should not be forced to release a player who is still under contract just because someone is willing to pay them more.
Bosman ruling, players under contract can be sold on (in European soccer). Be interesting to test it here.
