What's new
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!

Rugby Australia to target top NRL talent - Lomax case settled

eels4lifee

Juniors
Messages
759

Gobsmacked

First Grade
Messages
5,916
I totally agree with this.
A player with the mindset of wanting to go to this abortion.. for the money and exploring that .. that's not the mindset you want in your squad. You want players who want to play NRL and make a mark on the best comp in the world. That's what wins premierships.
Lomax has always put himself first and where he wants to play..not a team player. Maybe he'll get it at the end of his career.
 

Wb1234

Immortal
Messages
48,837
It actually defies logic to think that this comp will take place. The whole concept up until now is so f**king flaky.
Thery are meant to start October next year. Sooooo many aspects around setting up a comp are simply not in place.
The NRL bans won't be the reason why players won't go to R360. The flimsy proposal will be the ultimate factor.

Pvl has made a difference though with ban threats and questioning the comps viability

Gallop / Greenberg / grant would have had zero response

He’s doing his job of protecting the game as much as he can
 

Steel Saints

Juniors
Messages
1,519
RLWC draw out before one player is even confirmed for R360

RLWC kicks off on October 15 next year with the draw out and we know which teams will compete. R360 is suppose to kick off earlier, October 2. Yet no draw, and we don't know what the teams look like. R360 need to get their skates on.
 

Gobsmacked

First Grade
Messages
5,916
RLWC kicks off on October 15 next year with the draw out and we know which teams will compete. R360 is suppose to kick off earlier, October 2. Yet no draw, and we don't know what the teams look like. R360 need to get their skates on.
I think this whole thing screams of too much Columbian marching powder..
 

Murishido

Juniors
Messages
303
all the people talking about finding ways to avoid bans obviously haven’t read what the ban covers.

Any player that plays in an unsanctioned league is banned from the NRL for ten years. There is no prerequisite for that player to have formerly played in the NRL nor is there a prerequisite that player has to come directly from an NRL club. Players that have no intention of ever playing in the NRL will be automatically banned as well.
That's great but all the people pretending the nrl gets to just operate outside of the law also aren't that well read.

It's a bluster rule to begin with, a 10 year restraint of trade on careers that average 3-4 are less likely to win than PVLs defamation case.

Let alone retrospectively putting into contracts

Let alone then applying it to people who they have no contract with.
 

Growthegame

Juniors
Messages
795
That's great but all the people pretending the nrl gets to just operate outside of the law also aren't that well read.

It's a bluster rule to begin with, a 10 year restraint of trade on careers that average 3-4 are less likely to win than PVLs defamation case.

Let alone retrospectively putting into contracts

Let alone then applying it to people who they have no contract with.
PVL was right. There are a lot of Dennis Denuto’s around thinking they’ve got a better grasp on the law that the NRL’s legal team.

Nobody would be stupid enough to actually waste their money challenging this. They may win, they may not. I’m not Dennis Denuto. But as with precedents, a court will give down their verdict with the caveat that no court can force any business to hire any individual.
 

Murishido

Juniors
Messages
303
PVL was right. There are a lot of Dennis Denuto’s around thinking they’ve got a better grasp on the law that the NRL’s legal team.

Nobody would be stupid enough to actually waste their money challenging this. They may win, they may not. I’m not Dennis Denuto. But as with precedents, a court will give down their verdict with the caveat that no court can force any business to hire any individual.
Well pvl wasn't right last time he wandered into a court as a plantif but hey, if people are stupid enough to take a guy who has been proven in court to be foolish and incompetent as a regulator at his word about the validity of his regulation then surely there are others "stupid" enough to challenge it.

As for the forcing the business to hire no, but a) it's assuming no club would try and b) that there's no damages awarded for the restraint if it's clear a club wouldn't risk signing.

As for the legal team. I think that you think the nrl is a huge business, it's not. Their general counsel probably did a short stint at a law firm and highly unlikely they were an industrial relations specialist.
 

Growthegame

Juniors
Messages
795
As for the legal team. I think that you think the nrl is a huge business, it's not. Their general counsel probably did a short stint at a law firm and highly unlikely they were an industrial relations specialist.
You’ve lost any credit you might have had as soon as you start throwing around the word “probably”.

Unlike myself you probably don’t know anyone that actually works for the NRL.
 

Murishido

Juniors
Messages
303
Just checked it out he's seemingly a mid 30s guy with 5 years in a law firm, seemingly on financial markets, a few years for a coffee company in the states and then with the NRL. Not sure that's the legal mind redefining restraint of trade in Australia(not a shot at him - in h house legal aren’t experts in every area)

So I'm taking the view of an SC over him.
 
Top