RTS Off to Rugby (according to NZ National Radio)

[JJ]

Well if Kearney was my coach, I would probably take up curling.

You're a Sharks fan, so more resilient than that

 

[ZEROMISSTACKLES]

I dont want RTS to go either cos we ain't got anyone. Like I said when RTS was first made captain - he is simply 'managing the captaincy'.

RTS doesn't have passion for the jersey and thats ok, its a professional sport. I then have to question - wheres HIS heart is at? what does he want to do? I'd like to know. Because for one, I THINK he regrets ever coming to us, and two, how can you give the Warrior your whole-hearted/110%/every thing you got, when the word on the street is you ain't happy with the Warrior? pay him more? what, like that will increase his speed and his playing ability, and chuck in an all of a sudden passion in the jersey not to mention a new found belief in the "process" that he told us to trust in last year?

The captain wants to leave the ship people. He's giving us either a sign or a confirmation about our doubts for our teams chances of success this year.

 

[Iafeta]

Whatever happens ,happens I guess. Since hes only contracted until the end of the year hes with us until the end of the season.
I'm more concerned with the guy who signed a contract when he was 15 apparently with his parents who enjoyed the benefits of being paid until he got a better offer from another code. It'll be interesting to see where that goes.
It would be nice to keep Roger though.

Agree. NZRU, Simon Potter and Etene Nanai need to be pursued.

I've seen rah rah fans defend him based on

1. Who signs a kid to 5 year deals. Firstly, who requested 5 years? Perhaps the terms were so good he wanted that security extended. Secondly, I'm sure union were talking to him too (if not that's their failure in talent identification), so he IMO had options and he chose the 5 year Warriors deal.
2. He resigned. So? We can all resign but we aren't on term agreements. He would need to secure a release which is significantly different because that's a mutual agreement where both sides negotiate the terms of that release.
3. The poor kid having a contract. Yeah that poor kid getting paid very good money to get professional training and coaching to throw around a football. If I'm not mistaken, the Warriors even allowed him to play high school rah rah. He's received everything and now given nothing.
4. The Warriors suck so good job. So, let's think, what if Rieko Ioane all of a sudden ditched preseason and started training to be a running back for the NY Jets. Oh but what a good boy, he resigns. The rah rah fans would be flashing pitchforks left right and centre. Just because the Warriors undoubtedly suck doesn't mean you can screw a contract. Rah rah fans think the world begins and ends with the All Blacks, but if I'm getting a big pay rise to go to the NFL all of a sudden they potentially are the freckle face red headed cousin
5. It's not binding. He was 15. As I understand it, that's null and void because his parents co-signed it.

I back the Warriors 100% here to pursue legal recourse. I wouldn't want him back, but they deserve compensation here and I think in many ways it needs to be via Nanai because otherwise other kids can also screw the Warriors knowing if they're good enough contractual law and moral obligation means jack all.

 

[spear tackle]

Iafeta , agree with all your points above, I see this as a bit of a test case because if the Warriors just let it slide it'll be open slather on not just Leagues but any other codes junior ranks where players have made a commitment. I find it fascinating actually.
I would say if he wants to go let him go but the code that swiped him should be paying a development fee or something like that.

 

[ZEROMISSTACKLES]

Agree. NZRU, Simon Potter and Etene Nanai need to be pursued...

Sounds like unions got him. He's been quiet in the sevens so far but hopefully he comes out in Hamilton this week firing. Some other good players in that sevens team that might be worth poaching.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...-as-etene-nanaiseturo-named-in-nz-sevens-team

 

[spear tackle]

Sounds like unions got him. He's been quiet in the sevens so far but hopefully he comes out in Hamilton this week firing. Some other good players in that sevens team that might be worth poaching.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...-as-etene-nanaiseturo-named-in-nz-sevens-team

Maybe approach all the young performers in the sevens side with contracts? That would be funny and drive a point home.

 

[shiznit]

Agree. NZRU, Simon Potter and Etene Nanai need to be pursued.

I've seen rah rah fans defend him based on

1. Who signs a kid to 5 year deals. Firstly, who requested 5 years? Perhaps the terms were so good he wanted that security extended. Secondly, I'm sure union were talking to him too (if not that's their failure in talent identification), so he IMO had options and he chose the 5 year Warriors deal.
2. He resigned. So? We can all resign but we aren't on term agreements. He would need to secure a release which is significantly different because that's a mutual agreement where both sides negotiate the terms of that release.
3. The poor kid having a contract. Yeah that poor kid getting paid very good money to get professional training and coaching to throw around a football. If I'm not mistaken, the Warriors even allowed him to play high school rah rah. He's received everything and now given nothing.
4. The Warriors suck so good job. So, let's think, what if Rieko Ioane all of a sudden ditched preseason and started training to be a running back for the NY Jets. Oh but what a good boy, he resigns. The rah rah fans would be flashing pitchforks left right and centre. Just because the Warriors undoubtedly suck doesn't mean you can screw a contract. Rah rah fans think the world begins and ends with the All Blacks, but if I'm getting a big pay rise to go to the NFL all of a sudden they potentially are the freckle face red headed cousin
5. It's not binding. He was 15. As I understand it, that's null and void because his parents co-signed it.

I back the Warriors 100% here to pursue legal recourse. I wouldn't want him back, but they deserve compensation here and I think in many ways it needs to be via Nanai because otherwise other kids can also screw the Warriors knowing if they're good enough contractual law and moral obligation means jack all.

The problem for the Warriors is even with his parents and or an agent present. When push comes to shove NZ law doesn’t place much value on contracts signed by minors.

Especially 15yr olds.

TBH... the Warriors may want to be very careful pursuing this action...

Because if they go through with it... and lose....(which based on what I’ve seen if they don’t settle... the NZRU would be strong favourites in a case) every kid they have on the books signed to a contract at that age effectively become free agents.

They will just be asking the kid to pay back what they invested in him.

 

[ozbash]

Sounds like unions got him. He's been quiet in the sevens so far but hopefully he comes out in Hamilton this week firing. Some other good players in that sevens team that might be worth poaching.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...-as-etene-nanaiseturo-named-in-nz-sevens-team

Yep.. he's gonskis.. the club's posturing is embarrassing tbh..

Bit like fishing, you lose a decent fish at the boat and instead of bitch in and whinging about the one that got away..... you rebait your hook and go after another one

 

[RHYTHM AND STEALTH]

You listen to or read Veitch?

read

 

[Iafeta]

The problem for the Warriors is even with his parents and or an agent present. When push comes to shove NZ law doesn’t place much value on contracts signed by minors.

Especially 15yr olds.

TBH... the Warriors may want to be very careful pursuing this action...

Because if they go through with it... and lose....(which based on what I’ve seen if they don’t settle... the NZRU would be strong favourites in a case) every kid they have on the books signed to a contract at that age effectively become free agents.

They will just be asking the kid to pay back what they invested in him.

Understand your point. From what I'm hearing, the Warriors believe their case is valid. The key points as I understand it is if he was under duress to sign it (allegedly he negotiated for 6 months on it so it doesn't appear to be the case), the contract is onerous (I don't think this would be true, this is more to protect as an example child labour in coal mines for minimal return and maximum danger), and legal custodial representation through the negotiation.

The other part is if they give up without arguing this, then young players will feel anyway that their contracts are all null and void. So by not protecting their contractual interests it would appear they allow a precedent. And that could mean the Warriors simply become a rugby union development farm and then they're screwed because the alternate is not train juniors, but by doing that they close them off to massive portions of player talent.

I understand your view. But I think not pushing for compensation opens up an enormous can of worms. I also think this situation would not be the case if the player had have tried to get a release which is very different than a resignation because that's a bilateral negotiation. I doubt the Warriors would have asked for too much, so in a sad way, I believe Nanai has unnecessarily opened up a tough situation for all.

 

[Iafeta]

Yep.. he's gonskis.. the club's posturing is embarrassing tbh..

Bit like fishing, you lose a decent fish at the boat and instead of bitch in and whinging about the one that got away..... you rebait your hook and go after another one

Everyone knows he is gone. I genuinely don't believe that is part of the debate. It's about the Warriors ensuring they protect themselves from a resignation v negotiated release.

 

[shiznit]

Yep.. he's gonskis.. the club's posturing is embarrassing tbh..

Bit like fishing, you lose a decent fish at the boat and instead of bitch in and whinging about the one that got away..... you rebait your hook and go after another one

I think the Warriors should at least take action against the kid and his family to re coup the money they invested in him.

And then the family can get the NZRU to pay the bill.

 

[shiznit]

Understand your point. From what I'm hearing, the Warriors believe their case is valid. The key points as I understand it is if he was under duress to sign it (allegedly he negotiated for 6 months on it so it doesn't appear to be the case), the contract is onerous (I don't think this would be true, this is more to protect as an example child labour in coal mines for minimal return and maximum danger), and legal custodial representation through the negotiation.

The other part is if they give up without arguing this, then young players will feel anyway that their contracts are all null and void. So by not protecting their contractual interests it would appear they allow a precedent. And that could mean the Warriors simply become a rugby union development farm and then they're screwed because the alternate is not train juniors, but by doing that they close them off to massive portions of player talent.

I understand your view. But I think not pushing for compensation opens up an enormous can of worms. I also think this situation would not be the case if the player had have tried to get a release which is very different than a resignation because that's a bilateral negotiation. I doubt the Warriors would have asked for too much, so in a sad way, I believe Nanai has unnecessarily opened up a tough situation for all.

The problem for the Warriors is that in the rare instances where a NZ court of law has decided to enforce a contract on a minor... the minor is usually on the bubble of becoming an adult.

So your talking about 17yr olds who were close to turning 18.

So the plaintiff is arguing that there was not much difference maturity wise from when the kid signed the contract and when he turned 18.

But 15....I can’t say I’ve ever come across the courts enforcing a contract on a 15yr old.

Correct me if I’m wrong... but that’s breaking new ground for NZ law... which of course is the definition of precedent... which is almost a death kneel to most contract law cases as any court loathes creating precedent.

 

[Rich102]

I dont want RTS to go either cos we ain't got anyone. Like I said when RTS was first made captain - he is simply 'managing the captaincy'.

RTS doesn't have passion for the jersey and thats ok, its a professional sport. I then have to question - wheres HIS heart is at? what does he want to do? I'd like to know. Because for one, I THINK he regrets ever coming to us, and two, how can you give the Warrior your whole-hearted/110%/every thing you got, when the word on the street is you ain't happy with the Warrior? pay him more? what, like that will increase his speed and his playing ability, and chuck in an all of a sudden passion in the jersey not to mention a new found belief in the "process" that he told us to trust in last year?

The captain wants to leave the ship people. He's giving us either a sign or a confirmation about our doubts for our teams chances of success this year.

Or not. Have you heard him say he doesn't have passion for the Warriors? That he wants to leave?
Don't believe all you read.

 

[jaseg]

The problem for the Warriors is that in the rare instances where a NZ court of law has decided to enforce a contract on a minor... the minor is usually on the bubble of becoming an adult.

So your talking about 17yr olds who were close to turning 18.

So the plaintiff is arguing that there was not much difference maturity wise from when the kid signed the contract and when he turned 18.

But 15....I can’t say I’ve ever come across the courts enforcing a contract on a 15yr old.

Correct me if I’m wrong... but that’s breaking new ground for NZ law... which of course is the definition of precedent... which is almost a death kneel to most contract law cases as any court loathes creating precedent.

I'm sure we've had this conversation last year... but there are only 2 precedents I know of for contracts for minors being torn up by the courts in NZ... both under very different circumstances to this. Both were contracts with financial institutions, one was blatant predatory lending (going outside of the bank's own internal policies) and the other essentially a paperwork error.

So tearing the existing contract up would be creating precedent, not the other way around. (at least in the 'active' sense)

 

[shiznit]

I'm sure we've had this conversation last year... but there are only 2 precedents I know of for contracts for minors being torn up by the courts in NZ... both under very different circumstances to this. Both were contracts with financial institutions, one was blatant predatory lending (going outside of the bank's own internal policies) and the other essentially a paperwork error.

So tearing the existing contract up would be creating precedent, not the other way around. (at least in the 'active' sense)

No I think you’re confused here...

The precedent won’t be in ‘tearing up’ a contract.... remembering it won’t be the kid applying to the courts to have his contract made null and void.

The Warriors will be the ones taking the kid to court.

So the precedent will be whether the court decides to enforce the contract signed by the 15yr old.

It may seem like semantics... but there’s a HUGE difference as far as setting precedent.

You are right in that all the cases I ever studied were for financial institutions... but to me... this puts it in the kids favour even more... because by enforcing the contract your not talking about making a kid pay back money...

Your talking about forcing a kid to follow a career path that he agreed to start as a 15yr old.

So the core question the court will ask will be... is it it perfectly reasonable for a kid to change his mind on a career decision he made when he was 15.

you’d have to think yes.

I do however think that they should pay the money back that the Warriors invested in him.

 

[Iafeta]

That's the nail on the head there. I doubt the Warriors seriously believe Nanai will be at the club. I doubt also they want him back, I'm sure there are sour feelings there, even some of his peers must by dubious about him at the club.

It's about compensation. The club invested significantly in his development in good faith. They also would want to set a standard to stop too much more of this reoccurring.

 

[shiznit]

The biggest telltale sign to me that the Warriors are on shaky ground legally is the fact they haven’t applied for an injunction.

The kid played in Sydney last week and is due to play in Hamilton this weekend... what happens if the kid gets hurt??

It makes absolutely no sense for them not to file an injunction to prevent him from playing... unless they know they are on shaky ground and are playing chicken to get compensated...

 

[Billythekid]

This would be sad for the warriors and RL in general. It's always a shame losing talented players especially one as exciting as RTS. It also hurts the NZ national team. Hopefully it's not true.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Pretty sure in his first interview after signing with the Warriors he was talking of his All Blacks dream, so hardly surprising if he goes that way

This. Wasn't it always known or at least suspected that his Warriors contract was likely a stepping stone to All Black ambitions?

And this underlies what I think is the biggest challenge for League in NZ and the reason the sport is struggling for numbers- the level of professionalism and sucess in NZ Rugby Union in the last decade means way more of the kids want to play Union now. League isn't getting a 4 yearly windfall from the ABs shitting the bed in World Cups any more.

And of course the dismal performance of the Warriors and now Kiwis just feeds into that (thanks Rich)