IMO loyalty is a one way street in league, players have to show their loyal to the game and their club to get respect from almost everyone. Do the players get rewarded for staying loyal? For taking less than their potential market value, for sacrificing mostly an easier job (NRL being toughest comp, better code need I say more?) for less cash.
I think thats where the problem is.
Take Greg Bird for instance fired from the sharks because he alledgly glassed his missus, dont you think the club shouldve stood by Greg as innocent until proven guilty?
Apparently no it might damage the image of the game if found guilty, tell me where is the loyalty in that?
The game already was as damaged as it could get unless he was proven guilty and still played.
Stand him down yes until he can assure you he's innocent, dont chop him because your unhappy with what alledgly went on.
What he was cut for was trying to distort a police investigation by trying to concoct a lie to cover himself (using his friend, no less).
For the record, at the start of the process, Greg Bird was stood down by Cronulla from first grade (IE still employed).
Sudden change in circumstance, cut loose, loyaless
Fired, contract torn up no compromise.
Greg also had committed various other breaches prior to him leaving the club. Wasn't Greg also barred by the NRL, ala Tevita Latu?
Bare in mind that initially, pre-appeal, Greg was found guilty on two counts.
Also bare in mind that the Warriors themselves maintained their agreement with Michael Crockett when he was up for sexual misconduct charges. It's not always clear cut, as I'm sure now you are beginning to see.
Or how about Fien? Willing to stay and play, wanted another contract sorry son Cleary dont like you, you can go to the Vulcans.
Nathan had every opportunity to see out his contract in reserve grade, and I'm sure when opportunities arose with injuries such as now he would have got a game here and there. IIRC, the year before the Warriors had decided to let him pursue opportunities in the UK, but then he played himself into being kept so to speak.
The release was initiated by Nathan. He did not want to see out the term of his contract playing reserve grade. The Warriors didn't really have to release him. All his contract would have said is that you are employed by the Warriors for seasons XYZ, for XYZ pay, to be available to play first grade. I doubt seriously that there is any requirement for the Warriors to pick a player in first grade.
Players expected to stay loyal when they are wanted, but when the clubs want to cut you lose they can do so as they please or they push you to ask for a release.
Or how about Webb, sorry son we have found your replacment. Time to look elsewhere. We dont want you.
Not quite correct. Brent wanted a certain pay. He, at a guess, was using the 'representative' ploy to up his pay. The Warriors deemed they could get the equivalent cheaper, and did. Brent didn't lose out. He got a cushy contract with Leeds and the Warriors got a similar player at less cost.
But when a player wants to leave or have contract upgrade due to change in circumstance he is expected to bite his toungue and stay put. Your on enough.
The Warriors have upgraded a fair few contracts mid term. A lot of clubs will do it, particularly for young blokes they see as being critical to the future. Of course, with young players its a lottery but the clubs look at their top 2-3 and generally provide them upgrades, often well before their contract is up.
Fans are connected to clubs not players, so when a player does wrong by the club, fans go crazy...but when a club does wrong by a player it is forgotten about....fast
In none of your circumstances has the club done wrong by the player.
Webb's contract was up, he wanted more money which the Warriors didn't think they would be maximum value, so they went for a slightly cheaper player and Webb got a bumped up contract that he thought he was worth in the UK.
Bird committed a series of breaches under the Sharks code of contract and then proceeded to purge himself in a police investigation. Subsequently, the Sharks hands would have been tied anyway seeing as Bird was temporarily deregistered by the NRL.
Fien's contract, like McKinnon's, was being honoured. He was still getting paid etc. Both wanted to look for more secure first grade options. The Warriors again legally were under no obligation to support their request for releases, but did so anyway realising it was in the interests of both parties.
So is it really that wrong these superstars are asking for more money since they are staying loyal? They are getting the short end of the stick in regards to if the player dont hold up their side of the bargain (e.g get seriously injured, lose form, age too fast) clubs will cut you loose, but if the club dont hold up their side of the bargain, tough sh*t! you cant leave! or we will sue and ban you!
Who has lost their contract for lost form? They may have lost opportunities to play first grade, but who has had their contract axed on the back of poor form?
I think you need to realise that's contracts are bi-party agreements. The agreement is simply that you are available for a club for a certain period of time for a certain pay. The players do not have to sign these agreements. They can test their value in the market, as was the case with Brent Webb. Acceptance to me is acceptance that you will do your best for the club for the declared pay. It all seems a bit simple to me.
