What incentive is there for clubs to do the right thing regarding player behaviour

[Shoulders Matai]

Firstly i have to say I've really enjoyed watching Todd Carney this year and a lesser extent Bird as i havent seen alot of the titans.

But i can't help but feel sorry for Canberra and the Sharks who could really do with both stars in their roster but due to taking a stance against player behaviour have lost two star players.

You can't blame the roosters or the titans both players were available to sign but maybe the NRL should look in future at making the clubs who sign players who have been sacked from their clubs and derigistered by NRL pay a percentage in compensation to their previous clubs who have taken a stand against player behaviour.

 

[adamkungl]

The right thing by who?
If you ask a lot of Sharks fans, the right thing by them would have been keeping Bird.
Carney is a difficult situation. Chances are he never would have cleaned up his act without the sacking and subsequent events.

How can you make someone pay compensation for being sacked? In the end, the club chose to sack him. On what grounds is he being forced to pay them? I'm sure he payed them enough through the fines he would have recived for constant f**k ups

 

[Eels Dude]

It was Canberra and Cronulla's decision to sack both those players. No one held a gun to their head. Both clubs would have sacked them to maintain a good image, retain sponsors, and overall improve the culture of the club by getting rid of trouble makers. If other clubs are willing to give these guys a second chance then I see no reason why they should have to pay compensation to their former club if the contract has already been torn up.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Clubs know what goes on in Principal Gallops office. Noone wants to send their young & innocent players there. Fear is the incentive.

 

[bileduct]

As a Raiders fan I must admit that it's difficult to watch Carney play for another team, but at the end of the day I don't think the situation could have played out in any other way than it did.

The NRL and Raiders have already punished Todd to the tune of about $450,000.

Get over it.

Move on.

 

[typicalfan]

Sponsorship dollars is a big incentive.

 

[cleary89]

Who knows if they would have kept Carney or Bird anyway. By getting rid of them, they would have freed up lots of their salary cap.

 

[bileduct]

Who knows if they would have kept Carney or Bird anyway. By getting rid of them, they would have freed up lots of their salary cap.

Not really.

Campese's manager understood what leverage they had and used it to it's maximum potential.

 

[Ausguy]

its greg birds fault for being a lying merkin...

karma will get him.

 

[Perth Red]

Clubs are businesses as and as such have to look after customers (fans) and investors (sponsors), in this day and age companies don;t want to be associated with a club/game that has a bad smell about it. That is why they sack players, it's not out of some sort of moral indignation. Also they are wary of parents deciding which club there little johhny or joanne will wear the colours of. Again they know parents will generally stay well clear of a club with a deep rooted issue.

 

[adamkungl]

pfff. Sponsors don't want to be associated with losers. A sponsor will very rarely leave a winning side even with players in the news for the wrong reasons.

And parents don't choose who their kids go for...

 

[MacDougall]

Perhaps the better option would be to give the clubs that sack players the first option to re-sign them if another club approaches the player. Don't allow other clubs to sign de-registered players without allowing the original club to match the offer. If the player doesn't want to return to the original club then he has to be punished in some way, maybe half their contract money from their new club returns to the original club for the first season. Sounds alright to me, obviously it's in theory though.

 

[Eels Dude]

pfff. Sponsors don't want to be associated with losers. A sponsor will very rarely leave a winning side even with players in the news for the wrong reasons.

And parents don't choose who their kids go for...

I wouldn't say that too loudy... If parents didn't have a say in who their kids supported the Roosters would have about 37 fans.

And sponsors will leave a winning side if they make bad headlines. There's countless examples of that including Cronulla at the end of '08 after the incident involving Greg Bird. You could ask Tiger Woods too.

 

[Eels Dude]

Perhaps the better option would be to give the clubs that sack players the first option to re-sign them if another club approaches the player. Don't allow other clubs to sign de-registered players without allowing the original club to match the offer. If the player doesn't want to return to the original club then he has to be punished in some way, maybe half their contract money from their new club returns to the original club for the first season. Sounds alright to me, obviously it's in theory though.

Why? If they are sacked they are sacked, unpaid and no longer under contract... and if the club has sacked them initially why would they try and re-sign that player again? Doesn't make sense. Once their contract is terminated the player should have a right to do whatever they like.

 

[Perth Red]

Maybe the NRL should ban players and clubs have the option of keeping them on the books as a contracted player ie when they are allowed back in they are still contracted to that club and they have first rights to negotiate.

 

[adamkungl]

Or maybe clubs could do the standard "suspended indefinitely" garbage that successful clubs do.

 

[skeepe]

Or maybe clubs could do the standard "suspended indefinitely" garbage that successful clubs do.

Like the Roosters did with Jake Friend? Oh wait...

 

[adamkungl]

Like the Roosters did with Jake Friend? Oh wait...

He wasn't suspended. He was sacked. Soon to be re-signed