Player Poaching & Transfer Ethics

by **George Carlin** Sun Jan 08, 2017 7:41 am

Not sure if this was picked up by other news outlets but I think that the issues in this piece are worth a more general discussion.

Townsend has been in the game a while now and is usually understated and measured, so he must have lost his sh!t somewhat to speak about this publicly:

Furious Gregor Townsend blasts clubs circling Finn Russell
DUNCAN SMITH
The Scotsman, 6 January 2017

Glasgow Warriors coach Gregor Townsend issued a “hands-off” warning in the strongest possible terms yesterday after reports that his star stand-off Finn Russell has attracted the interest of a number of clubs despite having a year and a half on his contract. Townsend expressed disappointment that at least four teams – understood to be Bath, Gloucester, Toulon and Scotland coach Vern Cotter’s next destination Montpellier – are believed to have been circling following a string of sensational performances by Russell this season. Townsend called for the sport’s governing body to crack down on behaviour he believes to be contrary to the “morality” of rugby. “If clubs are speaking to our players when they have still got 18 months of contract left it is not right,” he said. “If what has been said is correct and four clubs are interested then World Rugby has to do something about it.” The global “regulation 4” regarding player contact does not specify any time restraint, though domestic leagues can instigate their own understanding between member clubs, but stresses that contact should be made through proper channels – in this case the SRU. Townsend continued: “There have been a number of developments in the game, where before there was much more understanding, comprehension, morality in terms of not speaking to players until they got to the last year of their contract, six months in the case of the Aviva Premiership.”

Townsend revealed that Racing 92 had approached Leone Nakarawa on the day of their Champions Cup game last  season when he still had more than a year left on his deal. Ultimately the Fijian lock was allowed to join the Parisian side for a fee. “Now this is not right. If one of our players is being spoken to about clubs when they clearly have 18 months of their contract left it is clearly not right,” added the coach. “We want to retain our players. Finn will be a Glasgow player for the next season and a half. He is contracted here. “World Rugby need to start dealing with this. You go to the club and ask ‘is this player in contract?’, ‘is it the last few months?’ ‘Is it another year?’ You don’t speak to the individual. I can only go on what is being speculated in the media if this is happening. If it is it is wrong.” The strength of Townsend’s words made clear that this was more than media speculation, of course, and he did admit that he had spoken to Russell, who returns to the Warriors’ starting line-up for tonight’s Guinness Pro12 match against Cardiff Blues at Scotstoun, about the situation, but said: “I would prefer to keep that conversation in house.

“He is aware he is contracted here and it is up to us to get the best out of him when he is still at the club and contribute to the club doing well which is what he is doing. “We have seen improvement and there is a lot more improvement to come.” If a club was to come and make a proper approach Townsend insisted that they would be firmly told that “he is not available”. Russell was already regarded as a highly promising young talent but his stock has rocketed in recent months with sparkling displays for club and country, specifically the double-header against Racing 92 in which he outclassed the great Dan Carter. Townsend, of course, takes over as Scotland coach at the end of the season and agreed that Russell’s nationality made him a different case from Nakarawa.

“Obviously, the Scotland perspective is massively important. You get managed and rested appropriately,” he said. “Leone left for Racing. We allowed him to leave but that situation was wrong as well. A player being approached the day of the game by the opposition in a Champions Cup game in the hotel before we played that team, and then the coaching staff speaking to that player after we play them is wrong. “Clubs will do it to destabilise situations for that player. But we made the decision that Leone can leave. “For Finn and any other number of players who have got 18 months to go on a contract, and we are dealing with Finn, he will be a Glasgow player for that period.”

Taking our wendyball sisters as a basis for comparison, under existing rules between FIFA and the FA (for clubs playing in England), if another club wants to procure the services of a player that is registered with another club they must speak directly with that club and not to the player or his agent. The individual player and the agent who represents him will only be brought in for discussions with the potential purchasing club once the two clubs have agreed on a fee. Failure to do so means fines all round and agents can have their licenses revoked.

Is that what we need here?

by True Raven Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:00 am

We have the same situation with Sam Underhill. English clubs and French clubs have zero respect for any other teams and try to bully them with their finances.

In the case of Underhill though, they can p!ss off cos he said he doesn't want to leave so should respect the player and his club/region

Also yes, it should be against the rules to approach a player still in his contract. I remember Chelsea got fined for tapping up Ashley cole, maybe world rugby needs to fine these clubs with rich owners who just through their money around

by LordDowlais Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:19 am

This is a very interesting subject, and this is where I think football has it right. For me if you have a player who has come through your academy and the club has invested a lot of time, money and effort onto getting these to the level they are at, and the club that invested all these resources into the player cannot match what another club is offering, then some sort of compensation should be paid, there should be some panel within world ruby who decides the value of the compensation.

A classic example of this was George North, Scarlets put a lot of time and investment into him getting to a stage where he was an international, then a big spending English club comes along and reaps the rewards of the Scarlets hard work, we have seen it with Leigh Halfpenny, Jonathan Davies, Richard Hibbard, and countless other players in the past in Wales. Leicester done it with Owen Williams. Bath did it with Faletua.

Other clubs with a lot of money, can just tell a player to run down his contract and get a big payday with their club, with no ramifications to the club who poaches him. All the hard work done by the parent club is then for nowt. This is highly unfair, also, with the threat of compensation, it might put the less rich clubs and a better position when it comes to holding onto their players.

by True Raven Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:52 am

I agree with you LD but unfortunately for North he was forced out by the Scarlets. They felt they could get good money for him so offered him around for clubs willing to pay a buy out fee and Northampton obliged.

by True Raven Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:55 am

I should also add the JD2 was at the end of his contract as was halfpenny at el and they are free to make to their own minds. It's no difference to when we buy in from the Southern Hemisphere. What I do take objection to is clubs trying to buy out young talent from other clubs cos they're own academies are sh!t e.g. Bath.

If a player signs a three year contract then he should fulfil that contract or not sign in the first plave

by LordDowlais Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:11 pm

True Raven wrote:I should also add the JD2 was at the end of his contract as was halfpenny at el and they are free to make to their own minds. It's no difference to when we buy in from the Southern Hemisphere. What I do take objection to is clubs trying to buy out young talent from other clubs cos they're own academies are sh!t e.g. Bath.

If a player signs a three year contract then he should fulfil that contract or not sign in the first plave

They were coming to the end of their contracts, and their clubs could not match what the wealthier clubs were offering, the players chose the £££'s. These players were yet to reach their prime, their regions were yet to reap the rewards of their labours with these players, the clubs that threw money at them got the benefit of the regions hard work. The regions put a lot of money time and effort into making these players what they are. If they are under say 26 yrs old, and another club flutters their eyelashes at them, and their parent club cannot afford to pay what these wealthy clubs are paying, then some sort of compensation should be stumped up.

by Welly Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:13 pm

LordDowlais wrote:This is a very interesting subject, and this is where I think football has it right. For me if you have a player who has come through your academy and the club has invested a lot of time, money and effort onto getting these to the level they are at, and the club that invested all these resources into the player cannot match what another club is offering, then some sort of compensation should be paid, there should be some panel within world ruby who decides the value of the compensation.

A classic example of this was George North, Scarlets put a lot of time and investment into him getting to a stage where he was an international, then a big spending English club comes along and reaps the rewards of the Scarlets hard work, we have seen it with Leigh Halfpenny, Jonathan Davies, Richard Hibbard, and countless other players in the past in Wales. Leicester done it with Owen Williams. Bath did it with Faletua.

Other clubs with a lot of money, can just tell a player to run down his contract and get a big payday with their club, with no ramifications to the club who poaches him. All the hard work done by the parent club is then for nowt. This is highly unfair, also, with the threat of compensation, it might put the less rich clubs and a better position when it comes to holding onto their players.

You can't force a player to stick with one club.

A fair amount of the players you mention where in their final year of contract so isn't the same as Russell.

And that is also the risk with producing your own players you invest into them with the hopes they remain slightly more loyal.

Also happens all the time between English clubs (esp teams like Irish, Falcons and Worcester in the past) hardly something that just happens to Welsh clubs. (Although you have to pay compensation if under 21 I think)

by Heaf Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:17 pm

If this had been in place before London Irish would be quids in ...

by True Raven Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:44 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
True Raven wrote:I should also add the JD2 was at the end of his contract as was halfpenny at el and they are free to make to their own minds. It's no difference to when we buy in from the Southern Hemisphere. What I do take objection to is clubs trying to buy out young talent from other clubs cos they're own academies are sh!t e.g. Bath.

If a player signs a three year contract then he should fulfil that contract or not sign in the first plave

They were coming to the end of their contracts, and their clubs could not match what the wealthier clubs were offering, the players chose the £££'s. These players were yet to reach their prime, their regions were yet to reap the rewards of their labours with these players, the clubs that threw money at them got the benefit of the regions hard work. The regions put a lot of money time and effort into making these players what they are. If they are under say 26 yrs old, and another club flutters their eyelashes at them, and their parent club cannot afford to pay what these wealthy clubs are paying, then some sort of compensation should be stumped up.

That scenario isn't the other clubs fault though. Which professional club doesn't offer more money to another player to entice him to come to their club?

The player has a choice, AWJ turned down the money to stay in Wales, Jamie Roberts has spent his whole career chasing the £££. It's not racings fault or quins that he chose them over Cardiff.

The issue is different to Russell being offered £££ that Glasgow can't match when he's in the middle of his contract. It's bang out of order and those clubs should be penalised

by **George Carlin** Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:50 pm

Makes Jonny Wilkinson's long tenure at the Falcons look even more impressive from a loyalty perspective.

by Seagultaf Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:16 pm

True Raven wrote:I agree with you LD but unfortunately for North he was forced out by the Scarlets. They felt they could get good money for him so offered him around for clubs willing to pay a buy out fee and Northampton obliged.

A bit of an exaggeration Raven, the Scarlets wanted to keep North but they couldn't compete with the salaries being offered by the top England's and French clubs and the WRU refused to help them keep him though a new extended contract. He was never forced out, he chose to accept Northampton's very generous offer and the Scarlets accepted a transfer fee as George was still under contract to them.

by True Raven Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:43 pm

George had a year on his contract and wanted to stay and see out his contract but scarlets realised he would be away with team Wales and play limited games for the scarlets so sold him to Northampton.

If George wanted to stay but the scarlets wanted some money for early release of his contract, it means he was forced out. George didn't ask to leave the scarlets early, but the scarlets put themselves first and realised they could get money from a transaction. I'm not knocking scarlets but the whole transfer wasn't George's idea in the first place

by BamBam Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:47 pm

If I am out of contract with my employer and another company offers me a higher paid role, should my previous employer be compensated for any training they have given me?

I've paid back any training they've provided through my performance and contribution to my current employers success, why should they receive anything further?

by Seagultaf Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:54 pm

Why would the Scarlets want to force out their best player? They wanted George to stay but he wanted to offer his services to the highest bidder. The WRU would not help the Scarlets so the offered him up for transfer. Big difference from being transfer listed and forced out!

Good business for the Scarlets, they had a return of circa £250k on their investment in George whereas, if they had waited till the end of his contract he still would have left and the Scarlets would have got nothing. My only critism of the Scarlets over this incident is that if they had waited until after the Lions tour, they would have earned a far bigger transfer fee.

by Irish Londoner Sun Jan 08, 2017 8:14 pm

I know this is the Union page but there's absolute outrage in RL circles - particularly of course at Castleford - about Denny Solomona "retiring" in the middle of contract and joining Sale.
Cas are taking Sale and the player to court, and if they lose there are all sort of implication regarding cross-code contracts.

by Geordie Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:08 am

Heaf wrote:If this had been in place before London Irish would be quids in ...

Exactly Heaf...ditto the falcons.

I say to Townsend...suck it up buttercup...theres teams whos had it FAR worse...ie Irish and Falcons...and Leeds!

by R!skysports Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:20 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Heaf wrote:If this had been in place before London Irish would be quids in ...

Exactly Heaf...ditto the falcons.

I say to Townsend...suck it up buttercup...theres teams whos had it FAR worse...ie Irish and Falcons...and Leeds!

Not sure I get that argument.

That highlights it even more clear that there is an isse

by Geordie Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:30 am

Ah I wasn't arguing I was just being flippant...I would love a change to this whole area.

Even now Wasps are circling over Marcus Watson.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:52 am

To be fair though GF, Watson is out of contract, Russel isnt.

by Geordie Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:54 am

Don't bring details into this Sarge.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:09 am

Good point GF....Townsend, wind your neck in!

by Geordie Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:12 am

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Good point GF....Townsend, wind your neck in!

by RugbyFan100 Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:47 am

Why is a transfer fee "underhand?" If a club wants to buy the remaining time of a contract then it's their right to isn't it? I'm not sure how you can outlaw something that is completely legal and above board like that. If p[layer and buying club both want it to happen then it should be allowed to happen.

by Manky-Flanker Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:50 am

Irish Londoner wrote:I know this is the Union page but there's absolute outrage in RL circles - particularly of course at Castleford - about Denny Solomona "retiring" in the middle of contract and joining Sale.
Cas are taking Sale and the player to court, and if they lose there are all sort of implication regarding cross-code contracts.

Not least of which is the £500k fine they are potentially looking at Very Happy

I did have a chuckle at this quote from Diamond though "I… do not want to get the lawyers involved, it isn't our style and it will be a distraction as well as expensive". Not your "style"?! maybe if lawyers had been consulted in the first place you wouldn't be in this pickle. king

by Sgt_Pooly Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:28 am

Manky-Flanker wrote:
Irish Londoner wrote:I know this is the Union page but there's absolute outrage in RL circles - particularly of course at Castleford - about Denny Solomona "retiring" in the middle of contract and joining Sale.
Cas are taking Sale and the player to court, and if they lose there are all sort of implication regarding cross-code contracts.

Not least of which is the £500k fine they are potentially looking at

I did have a chuckle at this quote from Diamond though "I… do not want to get the lawyers involved, it isn't our style and it will be a distraction as well as expensive". Not your "style"?! maybe if lawyers had been consulted in the first place you wouldn't be in this pickle.

Is this a fine or what Castleford are demanding? I thought it was what Cas were demanding as compensation tbh. Who exactly could fine Sale?

I also don't think this is a direct quote from Diamond. I seem to remember it's what he emailed to the Castleford Chairman in a private email after offering him a 50k transfer fee for the guy.

Sale to me, have done very little wrong in a professional sense. Solomona is a player from a different sport and has chose to retire from that sport and take up another. I guess it morally wrong and I can understand how Castleford are aggrieved, but surely this should be more directed at the player, not Sale?

by R!skysports Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:38 am

RugbyFan100 wrote:Why is a transfer fee "underhand?" If a club wants to buy the remaining time of a contract then it's their right to isn't it? I'm not sure how you can outlaw something that is completely legal and above board like that. If p[layer and buying club both want it to happen then it should be allowed to happen.

But the should go to the club, not sneak around talking to the player behind the clubs back

by Welly Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:45 am

Riskysports wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:Why is a transfer fee "underhand?" If a club wants to buy the remaining time of a contract then it's their right to isn't it? I'm not sure how you can outlaw something that is completely legal and above board like that. If p[layer and buying club both want it to happen then it should be allowed to happen.

But the should go to the club, not sneak around talking to the player behind the clubs back

What about Players agent approaching another club?

(Which happens more times than you think).

by RugbyFan100 Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:02 am

Riskysports wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:Why is a transfer fee "underhand?" If a club wants to buy the remaining time of a contract then it's their right to isn't it? I'm not sure how you can outlaw something that is completely legal and above board like that. If p[layer and buying club both want it to happen then it should be allowed to happen.

But the should go to the club, not sneak around talking to the player behind the clubs back

I don't see it makes a difference really. Once the offer comes in, the club are duty bound to let the player know - otherwise there could be all sorts of restraint of trade issues if the club are not letting the player achieve his market rate / salary.

If the club say "no" they could likely end up with an unhappy player anyway.

by True Raven Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:53 pm

Seagultaf wrote:Why would the Scarlets want to force out their best player? They wanted George to stay but he wanted to offer his services to the highest bidder. The WRU would not help the Scarlets so the offered him up for transfer. Big difference from being transfer listed and forced out!

Good business for the Scarlets, they had a return of circa £250k on their investment in George whereas, if they had waited till the end of his contract he still would have left and the Scarlets would have got nothing. My only critism of the Scarlets over this incident is that if they had waited until after the Lions tour, they would have earned a far bigger transfer fee.

You answered your own question, they would receive £250,000 now instead of nothing if George did decide to leave when his contract was up and they knew he would only play a handful of games for the Scarlets that year.

This was the reason why NDC came into place as the WRU were annoyed with the Scarlets that they were shopping him around behind his back and the WRU even tried to get him to move to Cardiff during the debacle!

If you want to read about it, google it, it was in the news when the WRU made a press release

by True Raven Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:56 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
Riskysports wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:Why is a transfer fee "underhand?" If a club wants to buy the remaining time of a contract then it's their right to isn't it? I'm not sure how you can outlaw something that is completely legal and above board like that. If p[layer and buying club both want it to happen then it should be allowed to happen.

But the should go to the club, not sneak around talking to the player behind the clubs back

I don't see it makes a difference really. Once the offer comes in, the club are duty bound to let the player know - otherwise there could be all sorts of restraint of trade issues if the club are not letting the player achieve his market rate / salary.

If the club say "no" they could likely end up with an unhappy player anyway.

So because a player throws his toys out of the pram, that gives him the right to leave a contract he signed. They are not forced to sign contracts, they choose to do so and so players should honor them.

However, this wouldnt be a concern if clubs with wealthy owners like Toulon, Racing and Bath weren't throwing their money around and waited until the contract had expired.

by Hazel Sapling Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:00 pm

I think there is an argument that no agent or player can be approached with more than 6 months left on a players contract without prior approval of the club.

If the player has been developed by the club and is under-23, there is an argument that clubs should be recompensed for developing the player. This is more an issue for the Unions such as offering to pay bonuses to academy's that produce internationals (like £5k per cap a player receives to differentiate between Robshaw (a 50 cap plus player) and Botha (somehow got 10 caps) (thinking English and French leagues that actually have private clubs))

by aucklandlaurie Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:35 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
Manky-Flanker wrote:
Irish Londoner wrote:I know this is the Union page but there's absolute outrage in RL circles - particularly of course at Castleford - about Denny Solomona "retiring" in the middle of contract and joining Sale.
Cas are taking Sale and the player to court, and if they lose there are all sort of implication regarding cross-code contracts.

Not least of which is the £500k fine they are potentially looking at

I did have a chuckle at this quote from Diamond though "I… do not want to get the lawyers involved, it isn't our style and it will be a distraction as well as expensive". Not your "style"?! maybe if lawyers had been consulted in the first place you wouldn't be in this pickle.

Is this a fine or what Castleford are demanding? I thought it was what Cas were demanding as compensation tbh. Who exactly could fine Sale?

I also don't think this is a direct quote from Diamond. I seem to remember it's what he emailed to the Castleford Chairman in a private email after offering him a 50k transfer fee for the guy.

Sale to me, have done very little wrong in a professional sense. Solomona is a player from a different sport and has chose to retire from that sport and take up another. I guess it morally wrong and I can understand how Castleford are aggrieved, but surely this should be more directed at the player, not Sale?

If it turns out that Solomona wasn't sacked from Castleford, then this situation isn't a hell of a lot different to when Sonny Bill left Canterbury Bankstown for Toulon.

by Kingshu Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:44 pm

Think you also have to consider the Goosen case

http://www.the42.ie/johan-goosen-racing-blatant-fraud-contract-3168696-Jan2017/

"RACING 92 HAVE launched legal proceedings against Johan Goosen"
"The 24-year-old shocked the Top 14 club last month by announcing his retirement from professional rugby in order to take up a role as “commercial director” with a company in his native South Africa.""That announcement came just months after Goosen had extended his contract with Racing until 2020,""French newspaper Midi Olympique subsequently reported that Goosen’s decision to retire from rugby was due to Montpellier owner Mohad Altrad making an offer to the player to sign for Gloucester in the Aviva Premiership."

"According to Midi Olympique, retirement was seen as a method of extricating Goosen from his four-year deal with Racing. Under current LNR [Ligue Nationale de Rugby] rules, Goosen would not be allowed to play for another French club for 18 months after retiring but it’s unclear how a move to England would be affected."

by HongKongCherry Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:49 pm

To quote Glaws' CEO Stephen Vaughan, there is more chance of Retief Goosen playing for us than Johan.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:50 pm

I don't think Solomona was sacked Auckland, he retired from RL.

The Goosen case is different to Solomona as the latter has retired from a different sport. Goosen has chose to retire form Union and now apparently wants to play for another club.

by marty2086 Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:59 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
Manky-Flanker wrote:
Irish Londoner wrote:I know this is the Union page but there's absolute outrage in RL circles - particularly of course at Castleford - about Denny Solomona "retiring" in the middle of contract and joining Sale.
Cas are taking Sale and the player to court, and if they lose there are all sort of implication regarding cross-code contracts.

Not least of which is the £500k fine they are potentially looking at

I did have a chuckle at this quote from Diamond though "I… do not want to get the lawyers involved, it isn't our style and it will be a distraction as well as expensive". Not your "style"?! maybe if lawyers had been consulted in the first place you wouldn't be in this pickle.

Is this a fine or what Castleford are demanding? I thought it was what Cas were demanding as compensation tbh. Who exactly could fine Sale?

I also don't think this is a direct quote from Diamond. I seem to remember it's what he emailed to the Castleford Chairman in a private email after offering him a 50k transfer fee for the guy.

Sale to me, have done very little wrong in a professional sense. Solomona is a player from a different sport and has chose to retire from that sport and take up another. I guess it morally wrong and I can understand how Castleford are aggrieved, but surely this should be more directed at the player, not Sale?

Sale have done plenty wrong, instead of seeing it as different sports see it as different companies. In the real world if you are under contract to a company you cant just say Im retiring then pop up elsewhere, especially because its breach of contract

by Sgt_Pooly Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:05 pm

Well that Marty, is an issue with Solomona, not Sale. Solomona may have breached his contact (Is there a retirement clause in his contract?) so is therefore liable to be took to court.

Without knowing the complete picture (as none of us really do), I can't see what Sale have done wrong.

by aucklandlaurie Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:14 pm

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Well that Marty, is an issue with Solomona, not Sale. Solomona may have breached his contact (Is there a retirement clause in his contract?) so is therefore liable to be took to court.

Without knowing the complete picture (as none of us really do), I can't see what Sale have done wrong.

Got to say I cant either, maybe sale have made a counter offer to settle Castlefords claim? if they had then that would more than likely be to support Solomona but wouldnt in any way be admission of any liability.

by Sgt_Pooly Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:20 pm

From the article I read, Diamond offered 50k in compensation but never stated that Sale had done anything wrong. Castleford may find they end up with nothing, which wouldn't totally surprise me.

It's not a great precedent though and I can see why people are annoyed.

by marty2086 Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:28 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:Well that Marty, is an issue with Solomona, not Sale. Solomona may have breached his contact (Is there a retirement clause in his contract?) so is therefore liable to be took to court.

Without knowing the complete picture (as none of us really do), I can't see what Sale have done wrong.

Got to say I cant either, maybe sale have made a counter offer to settle Castlefords claim? if they had then that would more than likely be to support Solomona but wouldnt in any way be admission of any liability.

Legally it could mean his contract with Sale is void or he may have to buy out his contract with Castleford which I doubt he can afford to do himself.

Sale knew he was under contract as they made an offer for him which was rejected, legally they could face damages for being part of it all

by Sgt_Pooly Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:32 pm

It's going to be interesting to see how it pans out.

by marty2086 Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:34 pm

Its not really any different to the Goosen situation with the exception of the fact that theres a governing body who can block someone else taking on Goosens registration if they deem it that Racing still hold it

by Sgt_Pooly Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:54 pm

And the fact that their different sports.

by marty2086 Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:56 pm

The fact they are different sports doesn't matter a jot when it comes to the legality of a contract, I compared to Goosen to simplify it

by Sgt_Pooly Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:16 pm

That's where we disagree.

by aucklandlaurie Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:20 pm

marty2086 wrote:The fact they are different sports doesn't matter a jot when it comes to the legality of a contract, I compared to Goosen to simplify it

If it was as simple as that, it begs the question why wouldnt Canterbury Bankstown have sued Sonny Bill and Toulon?

by Geordie Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:41 pm

It's should be tret as the same sport. Ie dual internationals...if you represent one in one code you must represent the same in the other!

by Exiledinborders Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:02 pm

This sort of stuff goes on in business all the time. It rarely goes to court mainly because UK courts are not very keen on enforcing long employment contracts and because to claim damages you need to show a loss that you could not mitigate.

In the Sale case Wakefield are not likely to get much out of it. The courts just tend to take the view that salaries paid to date are for services rendered to date and that on breach of contract the 'penalty' is payment of no more salary (which he will not be getting anyway). To win they would need to establish a financial loss that they cannot mitigate; for instance that they needed to sign a new player at higher cost as a replacement. The courts do not like anything that smacks of penalty payments.

by marty2086 Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:46 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:The fact they are different sports doesn't matter a jot when it comes to the legality of a contract, I compared to Goosen to simplify it

If it was as simple as that, it begs the question why wouldnt Canterbury Bankstown have sued Sonny Bill and Toulon?

Maybe because that's a different case

by RugbyFan100 Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:36 pm

True Raven wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
Riskysports wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:Why is a transfer fee "underhand?" If a club wants to buy the remaining time of a contract then it's their right to isn't it? I'm not sure how you can outlaw something that is completely legal and above board like that. If p[layer and buying club both want it to happen then it should be allowed to happen.

But the should go to the club, not sneak around talking to the player behind the clubs back

I don't see it makes a difference really. Once the offer comes in, the club are duty bound to let the player know - otherwise there could be all sorts of restraint of trade issues if the club are not letting the player achieve his market rate / salary.

If the club say "no" they could likely end up with an unhappy player anyway.

So because a player throws his toys out of the pram, that gives him the right to leave a contract he signed. They are not forced to sign contracts, they choose to do so and so players should honor them.

No, the player isn't throwing his toys out of the pram. If someone has offered to double his wages straight away, and he wants to take them up on the offer. He should be allowed to do so. Just like you or I.

However, this wouldnt be a concern if clubs with wealthy owners like Toulon, Racing and Bath weren't throwing their money around and waited until the contract had expired.

1) It's not just those clubs.
2) Why should a club be prohibited from using their cash that they've done well to generate? What incentive is there to turn a profit if you are not allowed to put it back into the business on player recruitment?

This is a professional sport, yet some people are seemingly keen to ensure it remains amatuer.

by Sponsored content