SBW will not play again this year

[j0nesy]

I would be extremely surprised if the NRL and the Dogs took any legal action beyond seeking compensation for SBW's breach of contract. Seeking an injunction would simply not be in their interests - whilst it has been some time since I practiced contracts law, it would be an extremely tricky matter to stop SBW playing Union. Moreover, even if the NRL was successful, the sheer cost of the legal battle would render such an action highly imprudent. Not only would the NRL find itself dragged into a protracted legal challenge that could drag on for months, it would protract the media attention surrounding SBW and give him more opportunities to badmouth his former club and code.

Posters here seem to be obsessed with the idea of making SBW pay for what he's done to our game, but really, making someone pay isn't good business sense unless they're paying something to you.

Spot on mate, I posted something similar in another thread. The Bulldogs and the NRL should forget about revenge and concentrate on what is best for the game and the club. That probably means getting as much compensation as possible.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

gasnier and SBW gone from the nrl.

they cant be replaced.

the nrl needs to loosen the 3rd party allowances or introduce a marquee player system where 1 or 2 from each club are salary cap exempt

and im sure the nrl can get an injunction just like when tallis had to sit out a year, SBW might have to sit out 4 years unless the union club convince the dogs to release him by giving them loads of money

In these cases I doubt it would make a difference, the money French Rugby are paying could not be matched under any circumstances... Hell Toulon are paying Luke Rooney $650k a season...

 

[sass]

In these cases I doubt it would make a difference, the money French Rugby are paying could not be matched under any circumstances... Hell Toulon are paying Luke Rooney $650k a season...

yeah. this doesn't really apply to sbw because he probably would have done something unhinged anyway ... but I think league has to accept that they can't compete financially with french union. the end. even if they change third party rules or the salary cap they still won't be able to compete.

but playing in the nrl is a different culture and a different code and a different country and layers will still want to play it. I think it says it all that so many players who leave for o/s for bigger money end up wanting to come home.

I reckon the nrl should make it easier to go overseas and play. give players a contract option where they can leave for up to two seasons and when they come back their original club has first chance to resign them at a pre-agreed rate if they choose to.

 

[eastsrule]

I'm very impressed with Todd Greenberg on the footy show right now.

 

[Once Dead]

Regardless of where or when he is going to land, you can be that NEWS LIMITED will be there with their overseas paparazzi giving us the scoop...

 

[Eels Dude]

I reckon the nrl should make it easier to go overseas and play. give players a contract option where they can leave for up to two seasons and when they come back their original club has first chance to resign them at a pre-agreed rate if they choose to.

Yeah... That's really going to solve the problem of losing players to the ESL and French rugby :roll:

 

[eastsrule]

Regardless of where or when he is going to land, you can be that NEWS LIMITED will be there with their overseas paparazzi giving us the scoop...

Every Australian media agency would be there as well.

 

[Once Dead]

Perhaps he got on an El Al flight to Tel Aviv and then got a connecting flight to Nice?

Thanks, Khoder.

(Laced with sarcasm and no seriousness at all)

 

[sass]

well how do you propose to stop it? or compete with million dollar contracts?

we can't. so stop trying. let them have two years and make a million and come home. better to 'lose' a player for a year or two than forever.

it's the same approach they've started using in aussie law firms to avoid losing all their best new kids to richer british and american firms.

and it works because in the end almost everyone WANTS to come back. as opposed to the situation now where if they do leave they're basically chased with torches and pitchforks and branded a traitor. that's not exactly gonna encourage them to come back is it?

 

[Shorty]

well how do you propose to stop it? or compete with million dollar contracts?

we can't. so stop trying. let them have two years and make a million and come home. better to 'lose' a player for a year or two than forever.

it's the same approach they've started using in aussie law firms to avoid losing all their best new kids to richer british and american firms.

and it works because in the end almost everyone WANTS to come back. as opposed to the situation now where if they do leave they're basically chased with torches and pitchforks and branded a traitor. that's not exactly gonna encourage them to come back is it?

Why should League reward disloyalty?
We can't stop it no,but why should League look like idiots and wait patiently for players to return that deserted the code in the first place.


No,once players go they should f**k off for good,no returning and no chance of ever playing Rugby League again.
That way they won't make their decisions with the intention of returning after a few years to earn more money.
The NRL needs to stop being treated like a backup and doormat.

 

[innsaneink]

I would be extremely surprised if the NRL and the Dogs took any legal action beyond seeking compensation for SBW's breach of contract. Seeking an injunction would simply not be in their interests - whilst it has been some time since I practiced contracts law, it would be an extremely tricky matter to stop SBW playing Union. Moreover, even if the NRL was successful, the sheer cost of the legal battle would render such an action highly imprudent. Not only would the NRL find itself dragged into a protracted legal challenge that could drag on for months, it would protract the media attention surrounding SBW and give him more opportunities to badmouth his former club and code.

Posters here seem to be obsessed with the idea of making SBW pay for what he's done to our game, but really, making someone pay isn't good business sense unless they're paying something to you.

Yeh, lets just let him go do what he wants, lets not stand up for ourselves on e little bit....it wont happen again surely, i mean....with all the loyalty....f**k me

 

[t-ba]

We're in a position to financially compete. We're just hamstrung by stupid restrictions. Sonny Bill would easily make more than what Toulon are offering if he could gather third party payments.

 

[Apey]

Sunday footy show said they can't contact Gallop!?

Maybe he went with Sonny?

I know I know..

 

[Knightmare]

A camera malfunction. How conveniant. :roll:

 

[sass]

Why should League reward disloyalty?
We can't stop it no,but why should League look like idiots and wait patiently for players to return that deserted the code in the first place.


No,once players go they should f**k off for good,no returning and no chance of ever playing Rugby League again.
That way they won't make their decisions with the intention of returning after a few years to earn more money.
The NRL needs to stop being treated like a backup and doormat.

I don't think it would be rewarding disloyalty! in this situation with sonny bill I think he will be taken to court and he should be. he'll be hit with a payout to the bulldogs and legal fees and he should be.

he's been disloyal and unreliable and pretty cowardly.

but in future I think it's better for the league to have players be relatively happy and to find ways for the best players to keep playing league. I want to see the best players playing league, to be honest. I'm selfish like that. and if they can find a way to make it work and avoid making it all or nothing for players then I think it's a good thing.

and maybe I'm missing something but I just don't see how playing union or playing overseas for a year or two in and of itself will make someone a traitor or league a doormat. if anything I think you'll see players consistently coming BACK to league, and wanting to play it. is it just a hating union thing? dally messenger played both codes and he's a league hero.

 

[Once Dead]

A camera malfunction. How conveniant. :roll:

The camera must have had a bull**** detector....unfortunately, the detector broke after reading extreme levels of crap eminating from the personality in question.

 

[eastsrule]

The camera must have had a bull**** detector....unfortunately, the detector broke after reading extreme levels of bull.

I do think it is poor form for the NRL not to have some sort of spokesperson come out even if it is not Gallop.

 

[Eels Dude]

well how do you propose to stop it? or compete with million dollar contracts?

we can't. so stop trying. let them have two years and make a million and come home. better to 'lose' a player for a year or two than forever.

it's the same approach they've started using in aussie law firms to avoid losing all their best new kids to richer british and american firms.

and it works because in the end almost everyone WANTS to come back. as opposed to the situation now where if they do leave they're basically chased with torches and pitchforks and branded a traitor. that's not exactly gonna encourage them to come back is it?

That's a ridiculous analogy because the career span of someone in the legal system is about 3 - 4 times longer than a football player.

You're obviously smart enough to know how the legal system works, so I'd like to think you're smart enough to work out the different situations between the two scenarios.

What you're suggesting is writing it into contracts that any player is able to leave at 22 or 23... they play overseas for 2 years... and thats it.

What if they don't want to come back because the money's better over there? What if clubs back in Australia don't want to keep them under contract due to the salary cap? What if they want to come back but their clubs don't want them because they cannot fit them in the squad? How do we register contracts along these lines? Is it through the NRL, or each individual club?

 

[sass]

We're in a position to financially compete. We're just hamstrung by stupid restrictions. Sonny Bill would easily make more than what Toulon are offering if he could gather third party payments.

I'm with you that the third party payment rules should change. but even if they do sonny bill is a special case. I don't think there's anyone else in the game who is as marketable as he is (when he doesn't talk at least).

I would say gaz is a distant second to him and they're both miles ahead of the rest of the boys in terms of commercial presence.

even if the rules do change all the other players who might be offered union contracts will be offered much much more than they can earn from the nrl and third party contracts combined.

 

[Shorty]

and maybe I'm missing something but I just don't see how playing union or playing overseas for a year or two in and of itself will make someone a traitor or league a doormat.

Why?
What is it then?

A player leaves a code(which is usually quite clearly for money) and that is at the detrimental of the League team and game.
You're saying that ,that player should be able to return and stop loyal players coming through the system to retain a spot they don't deserve.

How can you not see it as disloyal,if an AFL player went to League or Union the amount of uproar would be ridiculous.
It's nothing against Union,personally though I think they should focus on their juniors instead of giving it to League players.

if anything I think you'll see players consistently coming BACK to league, and wanting to play it. is it just a hating union thing? dally messenger played both codes and he's a league hero.

No,I think you'll find a sh*tload more players leaving League knowing their options are more open.
And returning when they've earned enough of their money - So making League a backup,it would make it far worse than it is already now.

Dally was playing in a time when both were very similar and does not compare in this situation.