With or without Rogers, Titans won't alter stance on Turner

[cyberdj]

Michael Searle has said that the club does have cap room in which Matt would be signing for around $200,000 season - huge pay cut for Rogers which all reports are he will be happy to take to 1. Move out of Sydney and 2. Play in the code he has come to prefer.

How do they (Titans) have the money? I guess it comes back to good recruitment and negotiating at the round table to ensure we fall in line with the $4.0M salary cap.

Maybe you should be a mod DeeGan, your post clearly answered the question of how the Titans would fit him into the cap, without over-reacting like a porkchop.

 

[DeeGan]

Some of you are forgetting that Turner publicly proclaimed he would be playing with the Titans next year on 2KY's BSB.

Then suddenly he had re-signed with the Storm.

Comparing it with the Rogers situation is a stretch at best.

In regards to Frank P, he was let go by the Titans because his religion came into play...and we all know how dangerous it is to fight someone based on religious grounds. Hence, the Titans thought it best to let him go.

****

The Melbourne Storm and Steve Turner case is well documented and I will not waste too much time on it here though Turner came to an agreement with the Gold Coast Titans on June 19, 2006. Steve Turner is quoted as saying,

"The opportunity to play in my preferred position at fullback excites me. I have been behind some great players at the Storm and have been appreciative for the support they have shown me but the chance to concentrate on the number 1 jersey at a brand new club is something that is too good to pass up."

Turner said, "The Titans have staff that I am familiar with; John (Cartwright) was my lower grade coach at the Panthers and I played with Satts (Scott Sattler) & also the chance to experience Billy Johnstone as a conditioner is very appealing. Let's hope I can leave the Storm on the highest note possible."

August 15th, Turner is paraded as a new signing by the Melbourne Storm ...

 

[Willow]

The Rogers agreement has nothing to do with Turner. It is clutching at straws to say the Turner's situation should change because of an entirely different contract.

I understand the contractual agreements behind it all. I just like how people view the two differently. It is fine for Rodgers to walk out on his contract before it is over but Turner is the devil for wanting to do the same.

I don't think you understand as well as you're making out.

You said: "It is perfectly fine for Rodgers to break a contract..."
Are you retracting that comment now?

I'll spell it out for you, again.
Turner is contracted to the Titans, but signed with the Storm anyway.
Rogers is contracted with the ARU/NSWRU, and will not play for the Titans in 2007 until he is released from that contract.

They both have their reasons for what they are doing and it looks like the Titans want another team to release a player to them when they refuse to do the same.

So?
Rogers won't play for the Titans in 2007 unless Union give it the green light.

Take it however you like.

Thanks. I'll take your comment as mudraking.

 

[Willow]

Hardly seems a veiled allegation. The Titans have signed some top line players, is it not plausable that with the signings they already have that they may be near the top end of the cap?

Your claim seem a bit over-reactional though.

I think your mate is trying to say more than that.

Near the top end of the cap? What's wrong with that?
They should be aiming at spending all their cap.

 

[Pierced Soul]

this is still mis-management by the titans who could have avoided all this sh*t had they actually gotten a contract signed by turner isntead of forgetting about the fact a contract should be signed. [-X

a bit hard for the titans to lodge a contract when there isnt one #-o

 

[Evolution]

You said: "It is perfectly fine for Rodgers to break a contract..."
Are you retracting that comment now?

I'll spell it out for you, again.
Turner is contracted to the Titans, but signed with the Storm anyway.
Rogers is contracted with the ARU/NSWRU, and will not play for the Titans in 2007 until he is released from that contract.

Even though he needs a release to go to the Titans from the ARU he is still walking out on a contract which still has a year to go.

You may not like my choice of words of ‘breaking’ a contract but he is still not committing to what he originally signed up for.

When Turner signed up for the Storm Melbourne had checked with the NRL if he had lodged a contract and they said no. As far as they were concerned he had no contract with the Titans when they did it.

 

[nqboy]

When Turner signed up for the Storm Melbourne had checked with the NRL if he had lodged a contract and they said no. As far as they were concerned he had no contract with the Titans when they did it.

Not quite. As far as they were concerned, a contract with the Titans had not been lodged with them. The difference, though subtle, is significant because as soon as they had to consider all of the facts, they came down firmly on the Titans' side.

Re-reading your post, it appears "they" are Melbourne. If so, it's an error of judgement or an illegal approach on their (Melbourne's) part. Either way, they're (Melbourne's) in the wrong.

 

[cyberdj]

I think your mate is trying to say more than that.

Near the top end of the cap? What's wrong with that?
They should be aiming at spending all their cap.

1. Definitely not my mate.... don't agree with most things they've posted on this topic.

I don't think any of the other player scenarios mentioned are similar to this one. And if Storm give up any money and two promising young players for an injury-prone player like Turner I'll be disappointed.

People keep saying how it's all Storm fault, when it was Turner that went to the Storm (via Bellamy) wanting to stay there. They listened to his case, checked that no contract had been submitted to the NRL and then signed him as they found no sign that he had a NRL ratified written contract.
And whilst the NRL have since ratified the Titan agreement, there may be some avenue for Turner to dispute the agreement, but of a bigger concern in my opinion is that the NRL seem to have disregarded their own rules and regulations (ie the 10 days to submit a written contract upon an agreement). Now that's a pretty interesting precedent they're setting... "if the NRL won't abide by the Rules and Regulations, why should any club".

 

[fizman]

I would like to see the NRL introduce a law that states a player is not signed until a signature is on the contract with the intended club. Intentions to play, handshake deals, e-mails are simply not good enough in the era of professional sports these days.

In my opinion, unless Steve Turner signed an official NRL contract to play with the Titans in 2007 he is a free man. If he has signed this contract, off to the Titans you go.

I support both codes and find pretty sad how contracts are done these days. Gone are the days where you not only supported your club, but also you could be confident that your favourit player/s would stick with the club - not anymore.

 

[Evolution]

Not quite. As far as they were concerned, a contract with the Titans had not been lodged with them. The difference, though subtle, is significant because as soon as they had to consider all of the facts, they came down firmly on the Titans' side.

Re-reading your post, it appears "they" are Melbourne. If so, it's an error of judgement or an illegal approach on their part. Either way, they're in the wrong.

The Storm were told my Turner that he had no contract in place and they were using the NRL's rules that contracts need to be put in within 10 days of agreement.

It turned out to be ruled against them but they did what they though was right at the time.

Were is the blame for the manager in all of this? He was the one that signed two contracts with two teams for the same player and would have known all the ins and outs of everything going on not either team.

 

[Lowdown]

Some of you are forgetting that Turner publicly proclaimed he would be playing with the Titans next year on 2KY's BSB.

Then suddenly he had re-signed with the Storm.

Comparing it with the Rogers situation is a stretch at best.

In regards to Frank P, he was let go by the Titans because his religion came into play...and we all know how dangerous it is to fight someone based on religious grounds. Hence, the Titans thought it best to let him go.

****

And some of you are forgetting that Turner is NOT disputing the fact that he thought he was going to the Titans. What is in dispute is that Turner did NOT sign a contract nor was one lodged within the required time period (later confirmed by the NRL) and subsequently approached the Storm wanting to change his mind.

People make mistakes, and Steve Turner made one. Just like Matt Rogers wanting to change his mind. They are not the same events - but there are similarities: The Titans hope Rogers can get a release, so to do the Storm with Turner and the Titans. Turner wants a release for family reasons, so does Rogers, so did Puletua. Its not financial in any of these cases either: Turner has said he'll glady play for less, even refund the difference to the Titans and Rogers is taking a pay cut to play NRL.

I'm sympathetic to the Titans' - its a massive inconvenience to have your plans ruined by a player changing their mind.

But they need to admit that they contributed to at least some of this mess. They could have ensured this whole situation was avoided by simply getting him to sign, and then lodge, a contract.

The only reason Turner is where he is, is because he thought legitimately (read: legally) he was entitled to change his mind, and re-sign with the Storm in the absence of any formally written, signed and lodged paperwork.

And lastly - why should a player have to sight religious reasons, or family deaths (or attempts gone wrong) as the sole reasons for compasionate grounds. We don't know what Steve's reasons are, nor do we need to. If a player feels so strongly that he does not want to leave his home, whatever the reason - it should be listened to and considered like any case. It appears the NRL has, along with the Titans. Interestingly Gallop softened his stance noticeably after meeting Turner and his GF, but Searle did not.

It also seems like this is turning into a personal feud between Searle/Cartwright and Waldron rather than a player dispute. Their egos are getting in the way, and I suspect its got more to do with the new kids wanting to play with the big boys. I suspect whatever the outcome, the Titans need to make their mark on the field with their results, and not through press snippets where they take pot shots from the safety of their desks.

 

[El Diablo]

I suspect its got more to do with the new kids wanting to play with the big boys.

LMAO

since when were the Storm "big boys" and not new kids themselves?

 

[nqboy]

The Storm were told my Turner that he had no contract in place and they were using the NRL's rules that contracts need to be put in within 10 days of agreement.

It turned out to be ruled against them but they did what they though was right at the time.

Okay, an error of judgement on their part.

Were is the blame for the manager in all of this? He was the one that signed two contracts with two teams for the same player and would have known all the ins and outs of everything going on not either team.

That's an interesting one. While it is normal to have your manager in on contract negotiations, I didn't see Riolo's name linked to Turner's signing with the Storm. Not saying he wasn't involved, just that I don't remember it. If he wasn't, it's possible Turner went behind his back, perhaps because he told Turner that he couldn't sign with Melbourne because of his agreement with the Titans.

All speculation on my part sure. If he was involved, then perhaps he needs to be investigated and lashed with a feather by the Agents Accreditation Committee or whatever their name is.

 

[DeeGan]

As per David Gallop in this article:http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/t...922.html?page=2

Gallop says: "I wonder how the Storm will overcome in court Riolo's email to [NRL salary cap executive] Ian Schubert which reads, 'I am steadfast in the belief that a deal was agreed to in my mind with the Titans in June. I could not in good conscience deny an agreement was made'.

 

[cyberdj]

Were is the blame for the manager in all of this? He was the one that signed two contracts with two teams for the same player and would have known all the ins and outs of everything going on not either team.

I don't believe the manager had anything to do with the Storm contract, he tried to help Turner once he'd found out what had happened. However he did contribute to the mess by not getting the written Titan's contract signed and submitted to the NRL in the ten days. Apparently, and I only have a post by Willow (see link below) as proof (but as an Administrator, he's/she's word is the TRUTH. A paper contract was delivered the day after the agreement, approximately 30 days later, it was still not signed and sent to the NRL... was the manager being lazy, was their an issue with the terms of the contract, why have the NRL forsaken their own Rules and Regulations???

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=151026&page=8

 

[cyberdj]

As per David Gallop in this article:http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/t...922.html?page=2

Gallop says: "I wonder how the Storm will overcome in court Riolo's email to [NRL salary cap executive] Ian Schubert which reads, 'I am steadfast in the belief that a deal was agreed to in my mind with the Titans in June. I could not in good conscience deny an agreement was made'.

If the NRL Rules and Regulations state that upon agreement a written contract must be signed and ratified by the NRL within ten days, then they do have something that will overcome that email, regardless of Gallop's position on the matter.

 

[nqboy]

...(but as an Administrator, he's/she's word is the TRUTH...

OT, but what makes an administrator's word the TRUTH any more than someone else's word?

 

[Lowdown]

LMAO

since when were the Storm "big boys" and not new kids themselves?

Well - 9 years is not exactly 'new kid on the block' is it? They may be outsiders for a number of reasons - you'd have to be thick to describe them as 'new'.

Secondly - it was never a specific or exclusive reference to the Storm - big boys was in reference to all other established teams and their CEOs.

 

[cyberdj]

OT, but what make's an administrator's word the TRUTH any more than someone else's word?

I have not read or heard anything about the contract being delivered to Turner's manager, the day after the agreement, apart from in Willow's post. I used it in part of my post (even though in my mind it has not been proven) and was just being sarcastic about it's validity.

 

[El Diablo]

Well - 9 years is not exactly 'new kid on the block' is it? They may be outsiders for a number of reasons - you'd have to be thick to describe them as 'new'.

no you wouldn't. they are a new team and we hear it constantly used by Storm fans

Secondly - it was never a specific or exclusive reference to the Storm - big boys was in reference to all other established teams and their CEOs.

yes it was seeing the Storm is the only club they're dealing with.

Wally Waldron is only new to the game himself and the Storm are hardly established