Playing for ZERO points?

[Iafeta]

Since when is an NRL contract the be all and end all...contracts are broken by both parties every yea without fail, and suddenly it would be impossible for Melbourne to shop a couple of the best players in the game around?

exactly i raised the point in another hread (i cant seem to find it, theres so many), ben ross had a year to go on his contracxt at penrith, was told to look elsewhere. last year luke priddis had a year to go on his contract and wayne bennett suggested he retire. if they can come toi an agreement for the better of the club and maybe have a loan system to the superleague, similiar to the one liam fulton did with huddersfield, they come back next year if the storm can keep them, if not they find another club simple as that, and the storm can play for points.

So naive :lol: NQCowboy, the situation you raise with Luke Priddis is not a broken contract. It is a negotiation between two parties to repudiate the terms of the contract. That DOES happen all the time. However, it is a bilaterial agreement, meaning BOTH parties have to agree to the repudiation. Your case is very apt on Luke Priddis. Priddis is till playing this year. Therefore Luke Priddis did not enter into negotiations to end the valid contract, and thus, if you aren't aware is still playing for St George Illawarra this year. You are aware of that, I'm sure, seeing as he just played his 300th first grade game a fortnight ago. Why though would a Storm player earning for example $150,000 accept that he is out of a contractually obliged pay for the rest of the season? What is it in for him? If you were guaranteed a monthly payment for another 18 months, would you coldly accept to leave even when you don't want to, and even when this is a good financial deal for you? Of course, I didn't think so.

In the case of Ben Ross, again, it is an offer. What Penrith said is that we are getting to the extremities of our salary cap situation and perhaps Ben, you could help us out, and maybe even help yourself finding a better contract elsewhere. If Ben Ross had time on his contract, he did not have to accept enter into negotiations on ending his contract.

Adam, those examples that NQC raises perfectly illustrate the difference between a bilaterial agreement to repudiate the agreement, compared to a broken contract. By the way you are terming it, the club simply says to player X, ta-ta, don't need you anymore, as of today we aren't paying you, which is a breach of contract and such measures to remedy this would include taking the club to court (and provided the agreement is binding, winning). Clubs, and indeed players themselves (for example a player gets a massive offer from the UK), often discuss to end an agreement, perhaps with a pay-out, or perhaps with assistance to find a better offer elsewhere, or perhaps because a club believes that a player going to the UK is in their best interests if they believe their performance is waining, that is it is mutually beneficial for both parties. That is not a broken contract, far from it.

 

[adamkungl]

Well if Storm can discuss mutual agreements with $700k worth of players to leave, then they should be able to play for points. Again, i've poorly worded it, but my point has been this the whole time.

 

[Quidgybo]

That is not a broken contract, far from it.

Again, there is no need to break any contract as there is never a contractual obligation to actually select players to play in first grade - again just ask Willie Mason and Kirk Reynoldson. The NRL can allow the Storm both to meet their legal obligations under all existing contracts and simultaneously block them from fielding a 25 man playing squad for the rest of 2010 worth more than the Salary Cap of $4.1m. Nothing you've said in any of your replies in this thread changes those two simple facts.

Leigh.

 

[nqcowboy87]

So naive :lol: NQCowboy, the situation you raise with Luke Priddis is not a broken contract. It is a negotiation between two parties to repudiate the terms of the contract. That DOES happen all the time. However, it is a bilaterial agreement, meaning BOTH parties have to agree to the repudiation. Your case is very apt on Luke Priddis. Priddis is till playing this year. Therefore Luke Priddis did not enter into negotiations to end the valid contract, and thus, if you aren't aware is still playing for St George Illawarra this year. You are aware of that, I'm sure, seeing as he just played his 300th first grade game a fortnight ago. Why though would a Storm player earning for example $150,000 accept that he is out of a contractually obliged pay for the rest of the season? What is it in for him? If you were guaranteed a monthly payment for another 18 months, would you coldly accept to leave even when you don't want to, and even when this is a good financial deal for you? Of course, I didn't think so.

In the case of Ben Ross, again, it is an offer. What Penrith said is that we are getting to the extremities of our salary cap situation and perhaps Ben, you could help us out, and maybe even help yourself finding a better contract elsewhere. If Ben Ross had time on his contract, he did not have to accept enter into negotiations on ending his contract.

Adam, those examples that NQC raises perfectly illustrate the difference between a bilaterial agreement to repudiate the agreement, compared to a broken contract. By the way you are terming it, the club simply says to player X, ta-ta, don't need you anymore, as of today we aren't paying you, which is a breach of contract and such measures to remedy this would include taking the club to court (and provided the agreement is binding, winning). Clubs, and indeed players themselves (for example a player gets a massive offer from the UK), often discuss to end an agreement, perhaps with a pay-out, or perhaps with assistance to find a better offer elsewhere, or perhaps because a club believes that a player going to the UK is in their best interests if they believe their performance is waining, that is it is mutually beneficial for both parties. That is not a broken contract, far from it.

i didnt say they should just straight up sack a player, thats obviously not fair, but sit down with the players and say if where gonna save this club we need to be willing to break your contract here, giving the option to the player, obviously if they can get a sl or nrl deal worked out. no one player is bigger than the game, no one player is bigger than a club, and if they wanted the storm to survive they would obviously go away, and if they wanted to come back later, they could but they would have a new contract and obviously it would fit under the cap.

 

[Quidgybo]

Well if Storm can discuss mutual agreements with $700k worth of players to leave, then they should be able to play for points. Again, i've poorly worded it, but my point has been this the whole time.

Technically it'd have to be more than $700k worth of players as you've got to get the squad enough below the cap to allow the 25 man roster to be filled back out with players on minimum wage of $55,000. But the point remains. As long as the 25 man playing squad is brought back under the cap, any payments that need to happen outside of that to satisfy legal obligations to non playing players is irrelevant to the matter of whether the team should be allowed to compete for the remainder of the year.

Leigh.

 

[Iafeta]

Again, there is no need to break any contract as there is never a contractual obligation to actually select players to play in first grade - again just ask Willie Mason and Kirk Reynoldson. The NRL can allow the Storm both to meet their legal obligations under all existing contracts and simultaneously block them from fielding a 25 man playing squad for the rest of 2010 worth more than the Salary Cap of $4.1m. Nothing you've said in any of your replies in this thread changes those two simple facts.

Leigh.

Again, I've said it before, and I will say it again. The Kirk Reynoldson situation doesn't work. He was still paid under the Salary Cap. He was entitled to an additional payment if he achieved X amount of games. I'll support that argument to a degree and add Justin Hodges, he was dropped once he revealed he was going to the Roosters. That is a club's prerogative, but unless there is a match payment scheme or a bonus for a number of games I can't in any way shape or form see how that is going to find them $700,000.

i didnt say they should just straight up sack a player, thats obviously not fair, but sit down with the players and say if where gonna save this club we need to be willing to break your contract here, giving the option to the player, obviously if they can get a sl or nrl deal worked out. no one player is bigger than the game, no one player is bigger than a club, and if they wanted the storm to survive they would obviously go away, and if they wanted to come back later, they could but they would have a new contract and obviously it would fit under the cap.

Again, if you were guaranteed a payment of $15,000 per month for the next 18 months, and your employer came to you and said pal, we've done some naughty things behind the scenes and we were wondering if you would ever so nice to end your payment scheme right now, would you do it? Of course not. As I understand it, the only clubs that I know of who have room under their cap is the Sharks (who can't financially afford to pick up any players anyhow), and the Warriors (who have limited space at best). Why would you accept the end of the agreement on the basis that you aren't going to get pay???

There are about 5-6 players including Brett Finch who are off contract at the end of this year. Those players will obviously go and this will go most of the way to getting them under the cap for 2011.

 

[kia ora storm]

Wow....I walked away for awhile and it has all been happening.

Heavy debate is good for the game...

 

[nqcowboy87]

Again, if you were guaranteed a payment of $15,000 per month for the next 18 months, and your employer came to you and said pal, we've done some naughty things behind the scenes and we were wondering if you would ever so nice to end your payment scheme right now, would you do it? Of course not. As I understand it, the only clubs that I know of who have room under their cap is the Sharks (who can't financially afford to pick up any players anyhow), and the Warriors (who have limited space at best). Why would you accept the end of the agreement on the basis that you aren't going to get pay???
.

i would, like i said as long as i could get a contract somewhere, such as the super league on some kind of loan basis where storm would not pay em but i would get paid by say les catalans. people are always saying how the sl is cashed up, so lets take advantage of this. if i where asked to go to save the club i would, go over to france experience life in another country, come next year if i really really wanted to go back i would take a paycut, but otherwise i would shop myself around

 

[Quidgybo]

Again, I've said it before, and I will say it again. The Kirk Reynoldson situation doesn't work. He was still paid under the Salary Cap. He was entitled to an additional payment if he achieved X amount of games. I'll support that argument to a degree and add Justin Hodges, he was dropped once he revealed he was going to the Roosters. That is a club's prerogative, but unless there is a match payment scheme or a bonus for a number of games I can't in any way shape or form see how that is going to find them $700,000.

You still keep missing the point so I'll make it the only thing I address in this post. The only lesson to be taken from Kirk Reynoldson is that there is no contractual obligation to select a player to play first grade. Beyond that the differences in the circumstances are irrelevant to the point. You do not need break a single contract for the NRL to stop the Storm from using those players in first grade.

Leigh.

 

[Iafeta]

Quite correct. There is no obligation to select anyone. But what is that going to prove, Leigh? What's that going to fix? They still have to pay that player, that player still counts to the cap. It's not about the cost of your players on game day, it's about the cost of the players you have registered. Kirk Reynoldson was still registered and still counted.

 

[mickdo]

Again, there is no need to break any contract as there is never a contractual obligation to actually select players to play in first grade

You can't just take players out of your top 25 on a whim, not even when they get injured. Contracts would need to be broken one way or another.

 

[Iafeta]

i would, like i said as long as i could get a contract somewhere, such as the super league on some kind of loan basis where storm would not pay em but i would get paid by say les catalans. people are always saying how the sl is cashed up, so lets take advantage of this. if i where asked to go to save the club i would, go over to france experience life in another country, come next year if i really really wanted to go back i would take a paycut, but otherwise i would shop myself around

Personally, I wouldn't take a pay cut. But that's just me and I would realise I have 10 years to make my dough. A lot of players don't necessarily want to go to Super League, if you're young, particularly if you're a rep player, there's loads of benefits to be made here to get a real big contract in SL at the end.

 

[Quidgybo]

Quite correct. There is no obligation to select anyone. But what is that going to prove, Leigh? What's that going to fix? They still have to pay that player, that player still counts to the cap. It's not about the cost of your players on game day, it's about the cost of the players you have registered. Kirk Reynoldson was still registered and still counted.

If the contracted value of the 25 players the Storm declare for their 25 man first grade roster for the remainder of the season (remembering their season to date has effectively been wiped) is worth no more than $4.1m then I've got no problem with them being allowed back into the comp to compete for points on their merits. They'd be on equal footing with every other club. Isn't that ultimately the point of all this? The fact that they'd have to continue paying around $1m dollars worth of playing talent that they couldn't use and/or would be playing for rival clubs is more than enough penalty for the payments not being included in the cap (in conjunction with all the other penalties that would still stand).

Leigh.

 

[Iafeta]

Who are you indicating, Leigh? Slater? Smith? Who?

Let's assume you mean 3 good to great players. The fact is, they STILL aren't available for other clubs. So it is still not equitable. Otherwise, you could stockpile a bunch of rep players, and then declare them not under the cap just so other clubs did not use them.

Also, I don't believe you are allowed to change your top 25, unless a player leaves. That is not what Newcastle did with Kirk Reynoldson. He was still a top 25 player.

As I understand it, it's also not a "here's my top 25" type deal. The club has to disclose all player contracts to the NRL, and they are then ranked on a monetary basis to work out who is in the top 25. Otherwise, again, you could stockpile 3 or 4 rep players and pay them real good money, knowing you can't use them, but knowing that other clubs can't use them either. That's half the issue with your solution is you are preventing other clubs from having fair access to players who could make the difference for them.

 

[Quidgybo]

I surrender. You seem determined to not comprehend what I've proposed so I'll let my points stand based on what I've already written.

Leigh.

 

[Iafeta]

Don't go and have a cry in the corner, explain yourself so people can understand. Since you can't get me to understand your warped logic, what about responding to mickdo's correction of your warped logics

"You can't just take players out of your top 25 on a whim, not even when they get injured. Contracts would need to be broken one way or another."

 

[mickdo]

I surrender. You seem determined to not comprehend what I've proposed so I'll let my points stand based on what I've already written.

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[lifesgood]

Simple, get under the cap and lose their points, even start on negative 6 points or something and then play for the season.

Or if the players are found out to have been involved, suspend the players involved and let the rest play the season out.!

 

[Philip_Smith007]

Just to throw into the discussion:

Are the contracts signed by players legally binding since they are a breach of the salary cap?

 

[Quidgybo]

"You can't just take players out of your top 25 on a whim, not even when they get injured. Contracts would need to be broken one way or another."

No they wouldn't. Short of doing anything illegal like forcing the club not to pay out legally obligated contracts, the NRL can set any condition or set of rules it likes for a team not currently part of the 2010 premiersip race before it readmits them. It's the NRL's comp to set the re-admission rules for the Storm as they see fit including but not limited to whether payments to non playing players count in the cap for the remainder of the year and whether the club can declare a new top 25 for the remainder of the year that is under the cap. I've already said all this and I think very clearly. I'm not going to waste my evening just rephrasing the same points simply because one person has a gap in understanding. I'm satisfied that most people who read this thread will understand what I'm proposing even if they disagree with it. Which is why I'm going to leave it at that.

Leigh.