The Supreme Court contract saga engulfing Will Hopoate and the Parramatta Eels
54 minutes ago
Paul CrawleyThe Daily Telegraph
In the old days Mick Cronin survived on a handshake deal during Parramatta’s glory days.
Today Will Hopoate is fighting the same club in the Supreme Court over a controversial $2.07 million offer that the Eels effectively claim wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.
While it has been speculated that Hopoate will join Canterbury next season, the State of Origin winger remains in an NRL pre-season lockout with the dispute due to continue in court next Tuesday.
In what some might say is a sign of the times in the so-called world of professional rugby league, The Daily Telegraph can reveal the finer details of a stunning three-year offer that was put to Hopoate last April.
Documents lodged in the Supreme Court show that not only was an offer made by Parramatta, but it was signed by Hopoate and returned to the club.
But because a subsequent NRL Playing Contract, also signed by Hopoate, was never lodged with the NRL, Parramatta’s defence claims that it did not constitute a “binding contractual agreement”.
Parramatta’s defence filed in the Supreme Court that on April 9 Hopoate’s manager Tyran Smith was sent an “offer” for a combined package worth $670,000 for 2016, which increased to $690,000 in 2017 and $710,000 in 2018.
That figure included in addition to a playing fee, that the club would use “reasonable endeavours” to assist in securing Third Party Agreements that scaled up from $175,000 in 2016 to $200,000 and $225,000 in 2018.
Then on April 16 Parramatta’s defence claims Hopoate entered into a separate NRL “Playing Contract” that was worth $500,000 for 2016, $525,000 in 2017 and $550,000 in 2018.
But for some reason the two sets of figures don’t add up, even when you take into account the NRL’s controversial TPAs that the club cannot guarantee.
The most glaring shortfall was for 2018, with a discrepancy of $45,000 between the “offer” and the playing contract, while in 2016 it was a $5000 shortfall and then $35,000 in 2017.
Parramatta’s defence claims the Players Contract included “terms that were materially different to those contained in the offer”.
None of the figures were included in Hopoate’s statement of claim.
Regardless, Hopoate’s legal representatives are claiming that Parramatta informed Hopoate’s manager that the contract would be registered.
But it now has the potential to have significant ramifications on Parramatta’s finals hopes for next season.
The Daily Telegraph understands if the Eels are forced to pay any money to Hopoate it will then be registered on their salary cap for 2016.
That represents a considerable problem given the Eels are also currently trying to prove to the NRL why they shouldn’t start next season minus four competition points because of previous salary cap dramas that came to light in May — just a month after Hopoate agreed to the offer.
Parramatta parted ways with former chief executive Scott Seward in June.
The club has until February 29 to prove to the NRL that they don’t deserve to be docked the four competition points, but they can’t afford another salary cap bungle.
The Daily Telegraph attempted on several occasions to contact Hopoate’s legal representatives without success..
Parramatta chairman Steve Sharp told The Daily Telegraph last week that the club had moved on from Hopoate, and was confident it would meet the NRL’s governance guidelines.
Asked for his thoughts on the tangled mess, Cronin said: “What do you say, it is the way of the world. It is a farce.
“I come from a different era.
“It is a bit of an indictment on the game but it might be an indictment on society in some ways.
“Once upon a time you signed a contract and you’d honour it.
“I preach loyalty but it happens on both sides now.
“You can’t say it is just the players, and you can’t say it is just the clubs.”
