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!
Have you read any of the cases? The very fact there were 3 cases seeking to define the Trade Practices Act, but perhaps you fail to see them as defining because:
Yet the High Court agrees with me? You’re the one who seems to think the second there’s a hint of restraint of trade that it’s illegal, but as I said there were interesting legal arguments both ways.
But the Tigers don’t have any players with options?
Spooner prices.
Serious question, why would they come to the Tigers if they arent paid more? because they like the colours?
In Richo we trust. He is taking out the trash, I think all will make sense in the next couple of months ;-)
Mate....ive read both cases and the references. The Federal case made the judgement based on RoT (in part) and the High Court ruled that its bullshit. Not sure what else there is to say
You could have him for that, I happen to know he is available. You guys snoozed on Nofa, dont do it again.
Galvin doesnt have an option
Careful, until a week ago you said that the Tigers weren’t dumb enough to have any contracts with player options. Why do you keep tempting fate?
Yeah… precisely…. Which means you agree with me? And drawing from there, just because provisions in a players contract would be a restraint of trade, does not mean that restraint isn’t likewise allowable.
Because your resident oracle convinced me it is great negotiating protocol (and lets face it how else do we get Luai to sign for 5 years?)
Correct because no Tigers have options in their contracts so they?
#NotMyOracle
Cant imagine why!
We were only lame in one leg for a little while.
