Rumours and Stuff

[Bandwagon]

Sure, but not necessarily any more than everyone else does (e.g. 'us'). I really don't get why the NRL allow any mention of the TPAs in the MoU's, though. Just asking for trouble.

Do they though? How would a club insert this kind of thing other than to say they will make their best efforts to provide introductions until such time as X$$ are negotiated with outside parties, and remain within the realms of the intent of the rules?

Such a commitment would be rather meaningless unless there were assurances made that any given target could be met. At which point that would be tantamount to a guarantee in my book.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Do they though? How would a club insert this kind of thing other than to say they will make their best efforts to provide introductions until such time as X$$ are negotiated with outside parties, and remain within the realms of the intent of the rules?

Such a commitment would be rather meaningless unless there were assurances made that any given target could be met. At which point that would be tantamount to a guarantee in my book.

Best efforts is not tantamount to a guarantee. That is actually the distinguishing attribute. As we've seen a few times, sometimes the TP doesn't pay up.

 

[Bandwagon]

Best efforts is not tantamount to a guarantee. That is actually the distinguishing attribute. As we've seen a few times, sometimes the TP doesn't pay up.

Sure, I agree, hence wording it that way, however your response conflates the first part of my post with the second part of my post, which are two separate ideas. Obviously a contract must abide by the rules to be registered, but if I'm in that space and know which way the wind blows, I want some personal assurances in place outside of that for it to actually have any real value to me.

Now it's on me if I take you at your word there, but it's on you if you break it.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Sure, I agree, hence wording it that way, however your response conflates the first part of my post with the second part of my post, which are two separate ideas. Obviously a contract must abide by the rules to be registered, but if I'm in that space and know which way the wind blows, I want some personal assurances in place outside of that for it to actually have any real value to me.

Now it's on me if I take you at your word there, but it's on you if you break it.

As I 've said, I think it ridiculous that the NRL allow any mention of non-Marquee TPAs in contract negotiations. They say that the club can have no role in negotiating such deals, but allow the clubs to put the players in touch with the potential providers. If all mention of them in contracts and supporting docs (i.e. letters of offer, MoUs) was proscribed, it would be a lot easier to police actual breaches.

 

[Bandwagon]

As I 've said, I think it ridiculous that the NRL allow any mention of non-Marquee TPAs in contract negotiations. They say that the club can have no role in negotiating such deals, but allow the clubs to put the players in touch with the potential providers. If all mention of them in contracts and supporting docs (i.e. letters of offer, MoUs) was proscribed, it would be a lot easier to police actual breaches.

I don't know that it would make it any less difficult to police, but I agree it would be a positive move to remove any contractual obligation or incentive from the club towards the player in regards to TPA's.

 

[Happy MEel]

If a new TPA is found mid contract, would a completely new contract be registered with the NRL?

 

[El Diablo]

Bernie orders his wine by the bottle, and just asks for a straw.

he has it attached to an IV drip

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

If a new TPA is found mid contract, would a completely new contract be registered with the NRL?

No, as the TPA is not part of the player's contract. But the new TPA would have be lodged at the NRL.

 

[The EELiminator]

Bernie orders his wine by the bottle, and just asks for a straw.

 

[Gary Gutful]

 

[The EELiminator]

 

[Stagger eel]

Don't be surprised if you see a player swap with Cody Walker...

Both Maloney and walker would definitely be up for it ..

Triple M are now running with the Maloney to Souths rumour ... nice to see that they're reading our forums.

 

[The EELiminator]

Triple M are now running with the Maloney to Souths rumour ... nice to see that they're reading our forums.

we should get together and come up with the craziest would-never-happen rumour just to see if the media pick it up

 

[phantom eel]

Hayne to Parra....?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I've got to hand it to you blokes. You've got some bottle.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Hayne to Parra....?

I hear we're the last team he'd go to. Something to do with an obsessed fan.

 

[Gronk]

No, as the TPA is not part of the player's contract. But the new TPA would have be lodged at the NRL.

IIRC a players TPA is noted on the pro forma NRL contract.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Triple M are now running with the Maloney to Souths rumour ... nice to see that they're reading our forums.

Are you sure that they can read?

 

[Happy MEel]

IIRC a players TPA is noted on the pro forma NRL contract.

That was always my assumption, which was the reason for my question.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

IIRC a players TPA is noted on the pro forma NRL contract.

That was always my assumption, which was the reason for my question.

That doesn't mean that they have to register a new contract. As I said, the player (via the club) has to advise the NRL of the proposed new TPA. And the NRL then either approved it's cap exemption or not. The player's existing contract does not change. If the NRL reject the TPA, either the TPA does not go ahead, or the NRL add the expenditure to the club's cap expenditure.