Sam Burgess retires

[Adam-Albert Casty]

It'll be a lump sum in a Gucci suitcase

No one puts Barb in the corner!!

 

[Danish]

If this is a new injury acquired during this contract period and he medically needs to retire, then Souths shouldn't have to pay him a cent of the rest of his contract given he is incapable of fulfilling it. He can lodge an insurance claim to try and get some or all of the value of his contract paid out.

However...

If securing full payment of the remaining contract is a determining factor in Burgess's decision to retire i.e. he'll only retire if he gets paid out, then it should be blocked. Someone retiring through injury should be physically incapable of playing.

Also, if Souths re-signed Sammy with this injury already in place and just hoped they'd be able to strap him together, then f**k em. They've made their bed and now they can lay in it. Same goes for if they also just thought they could needle him up indefinitely and make him play through it, leading to more damage.

 

[Bandwagon]

If this is a new injury acquired during this contract period and he medically needs to retire, then Souths shouldn't have to pay him a cent of the rest of his contract given he is incapable of fulfilling it. He can lodge an insurance claim to try and get some or all of the value of his contract paid out.

However...

If securing full payment of the remaining contract is a determining factor in Burgess's decision to retire i.e. he'll only retire if he gets paid out, then it should be blocked. Someone retiring through injury should be physically incapable of playing.

Also, if Souths re-signed Sammy with this injury already in place and just hoped they'd be able to strap him together, then f**k em. They've made their bed and now they can lay in it. Same goes for if they also just thought they could needle him up indefinitely and make him play through it, leading to more damage.

The problem for Souths is they can't just turn around cancel his contract because he's injured, which is fair enough. And why would Burgess retire and forgo all that sweet sweet to help'em out. He certainly doesn't have to, and while he's still under contract I'd imagine it's Souths footing the bill for any treatment.

I really can't see any club attempting to argue non performance of a contract due to an injury suffered in the performance of that contract, and it seems Souths are willing to pay him out, but that is conditional upon the NRL giving them cap relief in doing so.

Eels had a similar issue with Watmough and insurance, injured during training and the insurance company's position was it was an existing injury from his time at Manly, so they weren't paying it. They ended up settling after around two years of court action. Meanwhile Watmough had been paid out, and i believe from memory that payment was exempted from the cap.

 

[Danish]

The problem for Souths is they can't just turn around cancel his contract because he's injured, which is fair enough. And why would Burgess retire and forgo all that sweet sweet to help'em out. He certainly doesn't have to, and while he's still under contract I'd imagine it's Souths footing the bill for any treatment.

I really can't see any club attempting to argue non performance of a contract due to an injury suffered in the performance of that contract, and it seems Souths are willing to pay him out, but that is conditional upon the NRL giving them cap relief in doing so.

Eels had a similar issue with Watmough and insurance, injured during training and the insurance company's position was it was an existing injury from his time at Manly, so they weren't paying it. They ended up settling after around two years of court action. Meanwhile Watmough had been paid out, and i believe from memory that payment was exempted from the cap.

If he's incapable of ever taking the field again they'd surely be within the terms of their contract to terminate it. If not, thats some terrible work by whoever drew up the contract for souths.

I grant they'd probably feel like royal merkins doing such a thing, but if they don't want to make the hard choice, then thats on them.

IMO the NRL should just make a blanket ruling on all these that the insurance is the deciding factor.

Also, Parra were already docked points because of the watmough salary cap problem. They paid their price for his contract in that regard.

 

[Bandwagon]

If he's incapable of ever taking the field again they'd surely be within the terms of their contract to terminate it. If not, thats some terrible work by whoever drew up the contract for souths.

I grant they'd probably feel like royal merkins doing such a thing, but if they don't want to make the hard choice, then thats on them.

Again I'd argue otherwise, if the injury occurs performing the duties of his contract, then I'd dare say Souths would struggle to argue non performance.

IMO the NRL should just make a blanket ruling on all these that the insurance is the deciding factor.

The problem with this for mine is that the insurer has very strong motivation to deny the claim, so there is no way one could argue they are an independent arbiter

Also, Parra were already docked points because of the watmough salary cap problem. They paid their price for his contract in that regard.

Yeah they had been, but they still needed Watmough off the books to be cap compliant and begin accruing points. Otherwise they would have needed to move others on, which likely would have meant kicking the tin for more players to play elsewhere, which was the crux of their problem in the first place.

 

[Tiger5150]

If he retires he will be paid out and it is unlikely to count toward the cap. This is the most likely scenario, almost no point holding out for any different.

If Souffs pay hi, the money, it has to count against the cap. Those are the rules. Simple. Tigers cap is screwed for less because of Farah.

Of course Greenburg will let it happen but that is only because he is weak ans spineless and plays favourites.

The way it is supposed to work is.

a) Burgess says I cant play any more, Souffs pay him, it comes out of the cap.

b) Burgess says I cant play any more, they can prove it is a new injury (since signing the contract), Souffs dont pay him, the insurance company does. Alls sweet.

 

[Danish]

Again I'd argue otherwise, if the injury occurs performing the duties of his contract, then I'd dare say Souths would struggle to argue non performance.

Possibly, although that would only put him in line for some sort of worker's compensation payout. That would be a standard figure that would be the same for all players negotiated by the RLPA, not tied to his contract value.

The problem with this for mine is that the insurer has very strong motivation to deny the claim, so there is no way one could argue they are an independent arbiter

In my experience insurance companies are much more inclined to approve a payment for a valid claim than attempting to get the payment directly from the insured party e.g. trying to get a builder to fix something under warranty vs going through their insurance company.

Either way, the current "case by case" way the NRL likes to handle these things is the worst possible outcome for consistency.

Yeah they had been, but they still needed Watmough off the books to be cap compliant and begin accruing points. Otherwise they would have needed to move others on, which likely would have meant kicking the tin for more players to play elsewhere, which was the crux of their problem in the first place.

I'd still argue that the NRL already got its pound of flesh out fo the eels, although I'd agree they should have at least just not played for points at all that season.

 

[yobbo84]

Without Sam, Souths are still on 20 premierships - it's that simple. He deserves the money he's on and he earnt the security of a long contract. However, with the kamikaze way he plays the game it's always a risk.

If he retires his shoulder would have to be completely stuffed. It'll be up to insurers to determine if it was due to a long-standing injury or the post-surgery infection he suffered this season. Either way, he'll get his money, it's just a matter of whether it's on the cap or not.

IMO Sam should sit out 2020, get his shoulder right, get his off-field life sorted, and come back in 2021 for another crack. The club would just have to wear his salary for next season.

I will say though that Souths are not Parramatta or Manly. Richardson and Solly are no fools and they'll play the NRL like a fiddle. Media pressure will play a big part though.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

If this is a new injury acquired during this contract period and he medically needs to retire, then Souths shouldn't have to pay him a cent of the rest of his contract given he is incapable of fulfilling it. He can lodge an insurance claim to try and get some or all of the value of his contract paid out.

However...

If securing full payment of the remaining contract is a determining factor in Burgess's decision to retire i.e. he'll only retire if he gets paid out, then it should be blocked. Someone retiring through injury should be physically incapable of playing.

Also, if Souths re-signed Sammy with this injury already in place and just hoped they'd be able to strap him together, then f**k em. They've made their bed and now they can lay in it. Same goes for if they also just thought they could needle him up indefinitely and make him play through it, leading to more damage.

Sam signed the new contract in 2018 and played every club game (apart from those he was suspended for) from that point until round 13 2019 when he was ruled out with this shoulder injury... This was the first that was heard of it in the media or from the club so... Idk.

You would assume that he would have completed a medical assessment prior to his new contract as this would just be good practice and all of this information should be available to the NRL when they make a call on whether a possible payout counts towards our cap or not.

From a fan perspective though... I hope he recovers and I want to see him play on next year and through to the end of his contract. If he were to retire tomorrow, no matter who we signed to replace him, they wouldn't be half the player he has been for Souths the guy bleeds red and green.

 

[betcats]

The bloke played 14 games after the injury. How can it be that injury that retires him?

Lets not bring common sense into it.

 

[mave]

No prizes for guessing exactly how this situation will play out.
I have zero faith that Toddy could be impartial.

 

[parra_jesus]

I know they have set the precedent, but its a shit rule. Greenberg needs to start fresh and bring a new rule going forward. Show some backbone. A lot of clubs who have suffered previously will complain. But it is what it is. They expect players to be crippled and unable to walk before they declare them officially unfit ?

 

[Tiger5150]

I know they have set the precedent, but its a shit rule. Greenberg needs to start fresh and bring a new rule going forward. Show some backbone. A lot of clubs who have suffered previously will complain. But it is what it is. They expect players to be crippled and unable to walk before they declare them officially unfit ?

I dont think there is a clear precedent. Was Watmough the precedent? Farah? Inglis?

I agree with you that Greenberg needs to grow a spine and actually lead on this issue. The fact that all fans are defensive about this and that there is such murkiness and lack of clarity or understanding by all parties indicates that it is poorly managed and dealt with.

No matter what is decided, fans of other clubs will bitch and moan (I think Ill be loudest) because already there has been wild and indefensible inconsistencies. The treatment of Inglis & Farah for one.

Trouble is that there is quite rightly no trust at any level within the NRL, from Greenberg to the clubs, players and fans. We all KNOW that the rules will be bent broken and abused. Players at the back end of their careers will be lent on by their clubs to "retire" to free up cap space and the same creative methods used to get players to clubs will be used to get players out of clubs.

Perception is and will remain that a handful of blessed clubs get a rails run. Whilst these decisions at present seem to be at the discretion of Greenberg, this perception of bias is almost guaranteed.

Does anyone actually think that Souths wont be able to retire Sam and get the cap relief?

 

[Saxon]

Seriously though, when it comes to insurance, what is a "new" injury?

I mean at some point it was new, when does it stop being new for the purposes of a payout?

When you sign another contract. Bad luck Sammy boy.

 

[Bandwagon]

When you sign another contract. Bad luck Sammy boy.

Yeah as I said in a later post, that's fair enough. Is that the case here though?

 

[Bandwagon]

I dont think there is a clear precedent. Was Watmough the precedent? Farah? Inglis?

I agree with you that Greenberg needs to grow a spine and actually lead on this issue. The fact that all fans are defensive about this and that there is such murkiness and lack of clarity or understanding by all parties indicates that it is poorly managed and dealt with.

No matter what is decided, fans of other clubs will bitch and moan (I think Ill be loudest) because already there has been wild and indefensible inconsistencies. The treatment of Inglis & Farah for one.

Trouble is that there is quite rightly no trust at any level within the NRL, from Greenberg to the clubs, players and fans. We all KNOW that the rules will be bent broken and abused. Players at the back end of their careers will be lent on by their clubs to "retire" to free up cap space and the same creative methods used to get players to clubs will be used to get players out of clubs.

Perception is and will remain that a handful of blessed clubs get a rails run. Whilst these decisions at present seem to be at the discretion of Greenberg, this perception of bias is almost guaranteed.

Does anyone actually think that Souths wont be able to retire Sam and get the cap relief?

The problem with the whole idea of precedents is that they are set as "this will be how we deal with it under this particular set of circumstances", and that gets translated into "this is how we will deal with it"

 

[Perth Red]

I have no problems at all with a player receiving his contract if he can’t play any longer and it not being counted on a clubs cap. They are getting no benefit and are in fact financially worse off. Only stipulation is that the player can’t sign for another team during that contract period. Happens in business all the time when people on fixed contracts. These guys play one of the most physically demanding games in the world, some of them will get injured at the end of their careers.

 

[nick87]

I have no problems at all with a player receiving his contract if he can’t play any longer and it not being counted on a clubs cap. They are getting no benefit and are in fact financially worse off. Only stipulation is that the player can’t sign for another team during that contract period. Happens in business all the time when people on fixed contracts. These guys play one of the most physically demanding games in the world, some of them will get injured at the end of their careers.

so you’re alright with 27 year old Josh Papalii signing a 10 year, 400k a year deal right?

so then in 5 years when he’s ready to “medically” retire at age 32-33, we just pay out the remaining 2mil, and in the mean time we’re circumventing the salary cap knowing Papalii has a balloon payment due that won’t be included on the cap?

just checking for a friend

and you know which clubs are best positioned to abuse this kind of thing, right?

 

[Springs09]

If he retires he retires. He shouldn't get three years salary for retiring. If its injury-related he should get insurance payouts, but not three full years salary.

 

[Someguy]

I have no problems at all with a player receiving his contract if he can’t play any longer and it not being counted on a clubs cap. They are getting no benefit and are in fact financially worse off. Only stipulation is that the player can’t sign for another team during that contract period. Happens in business all the time when people on fixed contracts. These guys play one of the most physically demanding games in the world, some of them will get injured at the end of their careers.

The problems comes if a player signs a contract that is for longer than they intend to play, 4 year contract pay them half of what they are worth (even better backend it as much as is allowed) player retires and gets paid out after 2 years.

Not saying this is the case in Sams situation but there is definitely potential for cap rorting