What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Parramatta Eels sign Josh Papalii for 2014

S

spiderdan

Bench
Messages
3,743
personally i think this rd 13 thing is stupid.

i get that the nrl are trying to stop clubs from poaching contracted players but i don't think it's the right way to do it.

the way it is now, no club can properly plan for future seasons as the loophole gives players the chance to backflip on contracts. don't think it works the other way though (unless someone has better knowledge) but imagine if come round 12 a better forward was released from another club and our management said we wanted the other player and not papali.
 
Pete Cash

Pete Cash

Post Whore
Messages
62,165
Spot On said:
It looks as though they assumed he would be taking an amount much, much less than they will have to fork out now.

Canberra will definitely be paying an amount they never considered they would pay for him late last year and even early this year.

The question now is - if Canberra keep Papalii on an amount they never thought they'd have to outlay, who is it that will feel the squeeze this year when they negotiate their new deal?
Click to expand...

Logically if we re sign papalii we will struggle to keep Thompson imo. There isn't heaps between them at this stage in his career so he will likely want a contract in Papaliis ball park.
 
barney gumble

barney gumble

Juniors
Messages
1,155
Gronk said:
Relax people. Only 14 weeks until when we know what's going on.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a farciacal situation. Under the old June 30 deadline of course there were negotiations going on everywhere beforehand, even handshake agreements. At least a signing was a signing though.

Anyway, over it. The season kicks off in a week and that's what people should be talking about.
 
O

oldmancraigy

Coach
Messages
11,966
strider said:
Luke Lewis ... signed with Souths, but stayed with Penrith .... some other penrith dude too (nathan smith i think - the other one)
Click to expand...

No.

They never signed - verbal agreements they turned around on. Difference with a verbal is that you didn't sign the paper, and so the other club don't need to match it.
 
O

oldmancraigy

Coach
Messages
11,966
Craig Johnston said:
so what stops us from pulling the last contract, putting a new unconditional contract on the table with 2 weeks to sign take it or leave it?
Click to expand...

He signed our offer :crazy: [so it's a contract that is now in play, and not an offer]

We can't pull it. This is the point I'm trying to make here - we signed the bloke to a contract. The only bugbear in the contract is that clause (which has never been acted on in any situation before). IF that clause gets exercised, it's because both he and the Raiders have changed their respective minds on where they want to play and how much he is worth.
 
O

oldmancraigy

Coach
Messages
11,966
Noise said:
Didn't Nathan Smith sign a contract with Canberra and Luke Lewis likewise with Souths? Seems that it was relatively easy for them to break the contractual agreement before June 30.
Click to expand...

No.

and

No.

Verbal agreements they turned around on. That clause never exercised in those cases because they didn't sign contracts.
 
O

oldmancraigy

Coach
Messages
11,966
Suitman said:
Didn't Tim Moltzen do the same?

Suity
Click to expand...

No - Moltzen was in a 'transfer' situation where the Tigers were going to release him from the final year of his contract to join the Dragons.

Tigers claimed they never released him (after Lui blew up). Dragons got upset. Now Tigers are upset they kept him methinks?

BUT - different scenario. No clause usage.
 
O

oldmancraigy

Coach
Messages
11,966
Craig Johnston

Craig Johnston

First Grade
Messages
5,396
oldmancraigy said:
He signed our offer :crazy: [so it's a contract that is now in play, and not an offer]

We can't pull it. This is the point I'm trying to make here - we signed the bloke to a contract. The only bugbear in the contract is that clause (which has never been acted on in any situation before). IF that clause gets exercised, it's because both he and the Raiders have changed their respective minds on where they want to play and how much he is worth.
Click to expand...

smith might not have put his signature on the contract but he did enter an agreement which included a public announcement that he had agreed to the deal. precendence already has proven this sufficient for a binding contract....and the raiders did seek legal councel on this grounds.

not that much disimilar, the only thing that is in dispute is this clause about the contract being conditional on the round 13 rule, easy solution is to draw up a new contract if required and remove it.
 
S

Suitman

Post Whore
Messages
56,091
oldmancraigy said:
No - Moltzen was in a 'transfer' situation where the Tigers were going to release him from the final year of his contract to join the Dragons.

Tigers claimed they never released him (after Lui blew up). Dragons got upset. Now Tigers are upset they kept him methinks?

BUT - different scenario. No clause usage.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate.

Suity
 
R

Ratchy

Juniors
Messages
1,507
Jake the snake said:
We need to put a deadline so we can move on with our recruitment either way.
The kid wants to stay in Canberra, he would of come out and said something by now if he wasted to leave. Lets just cancel the deal and move on.

Crocker from Canberra would be an awesome buy.
Click to expand...

Feels weird saying this after who the club has employed previously to do these jobs I actually trust Edwards judgement or decision.
 
O

oldmancraigy

Coach
Messages
11,966
Craig Johnston said:
smith might not have put his signature on the contract but he did enter an agreement which included a public announcement that he had agreed to the deal. precendence already has proven this sufficient for a binding contract....and the raiders did seek legal councel on this grounds.

not that much disimilar, the only thing that is in dispute is this clause about the contract being conditional on the round 13 rule, easy solution is to draw up a new contract if required and remove it.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, a signed contract puts the clause in play. A verbal agreement would be to sign a contract after the deadline, and hence avoiding the clause.

The clause (sounds like a John Grisham novel) allows the home team to match the money offered and thus convince the player to stay home.
But what tends to happen is that the player is not offered the same cash (see Williams, Tony) or prefers the 'attention' and 'commitment' the new club showed by actually giving them a contract to sign.
 
mickdo

mickdo

Coach
Messages
17,355
I think that was already explained that they never signed contracts, only gave verbal agreements
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top