Squad succession

[Kilkenny]

The UK is the place for those players.

Ultimately your right.

 

[emjaycee]

FFS @Poupou Escobar, get with it and update to remove player options ASAP.

RLPA threat forced NRL to remove player contract information from its website

The NRL edited its own website after the RLPA sent an email arguing for players’ privacy.

www.smh.com.au

 

[RustedonEel]

@Poupou Escobar or else you'll be in BIG trouble.

 

[hineyrulz]

@Poupou Escobar or else you'll be in BIG trouble.

I hope he’ll have time to flush.

 

[RustedonEel]

Wonder if Sanders is happy with the Raiders extending Fogarty for 2026?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Interesting:

“In line with the current CBA agreed between the NRL and players, player options cannot be publicly disclosed, including by clubs,” the RLPA said in a statement to this masthead.

“So, technically, announcements like the ones you mentioned would not include years that are player options. If and when an option is activated, that is only when they form part of the term of the employment agreement and can be disclosed publicly in accordance with the CBA.”

As part of the recent collective bargaining agreement, the RLPA successfully negotiated for the non-disclosure of player options. Under the CBA, it is stated that the NRL and club shall only be permitted to publish the name of the player contracted, the seasons for which he is contracted and any future season for which the club has an option in its favour to contract the player.

It also states the NRL and club shall not be permitted to publish seasons for which there is an option in the player’s favour unless and until the option is exercised.

No wonder the new chairman came out and denied the future use of POs. They are to remain private.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Wonder if Sanders is happy with the Raiders extending Fogarty for 2026?

How do we know it wasn't Fogarty activating his side of the MO because he couldn't find a better deal? Just because he's staying at the Raiders doesn't mean he will stay in the top 17.

 

[the phantom menace]

Lol, welfare check for Pou... he won't be able to discuss player options etc in any meaningful way on here once the NRL stops publishing info about POs officially.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The new Eels chairman has made such massive changes that nobody in the entire NRL is using player options any more. All of a sudden it's COs only:

2025 NRL Signings Tracker: Smith joins Rabbitohs; Crossland, Mann extend

New Zealand international Brandon Smith will join the South Sydney Rabbitohs on a two-year deal from next season.

www.nrl.com

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Lol, welfare check for Pou... he won't be able to discuss player options etc in any meaningful way on here once the NRL stops publishing info about POs officially.

This puts to bed the false media/fan narrative that POs are get out clauses. "If and when an option is activated, that is only when they form part of the term of the employment agreement". They are opt in clauses, not opt out clauses, and therefore not the reason a player is off contract and free to negotiate with rivals.

 

[the phantom menace]

No wonder the new chairman came out and denied the future use of POs. They are to remain private.

Are you insinuating our chairman is a liar... just to suit a favoured topic in your trolling agenda?

 

[the phantom menace]

This puts to bed the false media/fan narrative that POs are get out clauses.

Not really.

They are opt in clauses, not opt out clauses, and therefore not the reason a player is off contract and free to negotiate with rivals.

But the club that offers a PO still has to (legally) "hold space" in the cap for the player until the trigger date passes - which means that the club's recruitment/retention is unnecessarily stalled.

So from the club's perspective, a PO decision by a player can rightly be seen as an opt out of the salary and squad planning they have had to keep on the books just in case.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Are you insinuating our chairman is a liar... just to suit a favoured topic in your trolling agenda?

I hope he does bullshit to the media and fans. There is no benefit to the club for him to reveal internal club business to people who have no need-to-know.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Not really.

But the club that offers a PO still has to (legally) "hold space" in the cap for the player until the trigger date passes - which means that the club's recruitment/retention is unnecessarily stalled.

So from the club's perspective, a PO decision by a player can rightly be seen as an opt out of the salary and squad planning they have had to keep on the books just in case.

They have to do this for any player they want to retain. The only way to avoid it is to decide they don't want to retain any players.

 

[the phantom menace]

They have to do this for any player they want to retain. The only way to avoid it is to decide they don't want to retain any players.

Difference being with any player "they want to retain" it's the club making the call on how much and by when the decision is needed. Once a PO is out there, the power balance shifts to the player for those decisions - and meanwhile the club is hamstrung, albeit by its own previous stupidity in giving up its power by a PO in the first place.

My comment was more about why a player not triggering a PO can be seen by a club as an opt out of a future arrangement they had willingly offered (some time ago), and must then wait for a subsequent decision (that shouldn't have been part of the bargaining). No wonder we have confirmed we aren't offering POs in the future.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Difference being with any player "they want to retain" it's the club making the call on how much and by when the decision is needed.

This call is also made when the PO is negotiated.

Once a PO is out there, the power balance shifts to the player for those decisions - and meanwhile the club is hamstrung, albeit by its own previous stupidity in giving up its power by a PO in the first place.

The power should shift to the player. He earned it when he agreed to less money during the initial negotiation. He should get something in return.

My comment was more about why a player not triggering a PO can be seen by a club as an opt out of a future arrangement they had willingly offered (some time ago), and must then wait for a subsequent decision (that shouldn't have been part of the bargaining). No wonder we have confirmed we aren't offering POs in the future.

We don't know what's going to happen in the future. There's no reason for the new chairman to tell you anything other than what you wanted to hear. But when we do offer POs in future, they won't be reported.

 

[the phantom menace]

This call is also made when the PO is negotiated.

Potentially by different people at the club, because it's years ahead of when the PO is triggered. It shackles us and that's why our club (among several) no longer does them.

The power should shift to the player. He earned it when he agreed to less money during the initial negotiation. He should get something in return.

Yeah... nah. If you agree to what is offered, you shouldn't get a bonus for doing so. Take it or leave it - Talagi left it, Dylan left it. Merkins can chase the money if that's what drives them - all replaceable in a well-managed, development club with good systems.

We don't know what's going to happen in the future.

But feel free to speculate...

There's no reason for the new chairman to tell you anything other than what you wanted to hear. But when we do offer POs in future, they won't be reported.

Thanks for your unfounded speculation.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Potentially by different people at the club, because it's years ahead of when the PO is triggered. It shackles us and that's why our club (among several) no longer does them.

Any long contract 'shackles the club', and we don't know what any club will do in future regarding contract options. The negative press around them has been addressed by the RLPA and clubs are on notice not to disclose player options in future. But they have always been a bargaining chip beneficial to both parties and they will remain so.

 

[the phantom menace]

Any long contract 'shackles the club', and we don't know what any club will do in future regarding contract options. The negative press around them has been addressed by the RLPA and clubs are on notice not to disclose player options in future. But they have always been a bargaining chip beneficial to both parties and they will remain so.

We're not talking about any long contract... we're talking about contracts made longer (or not) by POs. It's a different kettle of fish, and Parramatta have indicated they will not be offering POs - well before the RLPA action about whether or not they are published.

I agree with the RLPA's stance that the POs not be reported/included in NRL web info detailing the length of time a player is contracted to the club, so long as PO information is made available to all other clubs.

I also understand and agree that COs should be reported and part of that published information, as they do represent how long a player is tied to a club - unless the club "opts out" from the final year at the agreed price.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

We're not talking about any long contract... we're talking about contracts made longer (or not) by POs. It's a different kettle of fish, and Parramatta have indicated they will not be offering POs - well before the RLPA action about whether or not they are published.

But well after the press turned them into a scandal.