Official: Knights sign David Klemmer for 5 years

[88Knight4life]

What part of 3rd party payments do people not understand?

Klemmer won’t have a leg to stand on against the Dogs due to those 3rd party payments. Dogs will be at arms length away and have no legal obligation to them therefore aren’t responsible for them.

I’m amazed at how many people can’t/haven’t grasped that yet.

Well its been published that he has a get out clause due to those 3rd party deals, so one would have to think its got merit.

 

[Matty James]

Apparently he isn’t due back until the second week of December so it may well drag out until then.

 

[88Knight4life]

I'd be more inclined to say nothing will happen until Klemmer is back from holidays.

 

[krustykraz]

What part of 3rd party payments do people not understand?

Klemmer won’t have a leg to stand on against the Dogs due to those 3rd party payments. Dogs will be at arms length away and have no legal obligation to them therefore aren’t responsible for them.

I’m amazed at how many people can’t/haven’t grasped that yet.

I think its more the Bulldogs not wanting a spotlight on their dodgy 3rd party deals.
If Klemmer complains about his deal and the Nrl look into it what else might they find?

 

[Kurriboy]

What part of 3rd party payments do people not understand?

Klemmer won’t have a leg to stand on against the Dogs due to those 3rd party payments. Dogs will be at arms length away and have no legal obligation to them therefore aren’t responsible for them.

I’m amazed at how many people can’t/haven’t grasped that yet.

And I can't believe people can't grasp that 3rd party agreements are not at arms length at all, the clubs arrange them specifically to pay players to play for them. Surely you can't be this naive.

I don't care what pretendy stuff the clubs and NRL let be seen on the surface, behind the scenes you have clubs doing whatever they want and the NRL turn a blind eye unless they are forced to do something. There is a reason clubs only ever get caught for cap breaches by whistle blowers.

Lets play a scenario, your a top player, and your value is $700,000 per year. Your contract is up and you are negotiating with several clubs. One club is offering 400k under the cap and 300k in TPA, the other is offering 700k all under the cap. You want to sign with the TPA club as they are a top club. Are you seriously going to not have some sort of protection to make sure you get that money? Hell no. The player agent would not let that happen.

Klemmer has a get out clause as has been reported, why wouldn't you. Especially with the back ended contract he reportedly has. The dogs can't stand in his way as Klem can expose all that pretendy stuff for the BS it is, can show he has been guaranteed those TPA's and the dogs will be up the creek without a paddle yet again.

Really can't get how many people haven't grasped this yet!

 

[cowboyman]

And I can't believe people can't grasp that 3rd party agreements are not at arms length at all, the clubs arrange them specifically to pay players to play for them. Surely you can't be this naive.

I firmly believe most clubs do arrange them and definitely not that naive.

But clubs distance themselves far enough to hold no legal obligation over them hence being called a 3rd party agreement. It’s a easy way to get the player payed but not on their books.

 

[cowboyman]

Well its been published that he has a get out clause due to those 3rd party deals, so one would have to think its got merit.

The same journos we all like to talk trash over them on how much crap they write and that they don’t know this, that and the other? I guess they are top journos when they suit your agenda/view....

 

[cowboyman]

I think its more the Bulldogs not wanting a spotlight on their dodgy 3rd party deals.
If Klemmer complains about his deal and the Nrl look into it what else might they find?

Probably the most likely of the situations but by no means a clause in the contract like some like to say.

 

[Kurriboy]

I firmly believe most clubs do arrange them and definitely not that naive.

But clubs distance themselves far enough to hold no legal obligation over them hence being called a 3rd party agreement. It’s a easy way to get the player payed but not on their books.

No they don't, when you have players saying they are waiting on a club to arrange a TPA and will know their future soon lol, sure thing. When you have a player say how the deals work is your manager negotiates a deal with a club for 500k per year, and when you turn up to sign the contract there is a contract for 400 and a TPA contract for 100 sitting there lol.

Like I said, there is the pretendy world that everyone pretends is real, and then there is what actually happens.

 

[Kurriboy]

Probably the most likely of the situations but by no means a clause in the contract like some like to say.

This was exactly what I wrote above, get out clause or not, if he aint getting paid a TPA when he was promised it, the dogs will not want any heat coming there way over it, hence he must get released, so they can't hold him to the contract at all.

Here look, I quoted it for you.

Nah, they can try to sure, but nobody wants a player there that does not want to be there.

Also, if this dispute involves unpaid 3rd party agreements and the dogs insist he stay, Klem can take them to court for unpaid payments much like Foran. The NRL spotlight didn't end well for Manly, same thing would happen with dogs.

Dogs know they have no choice and will release him, Klem probably not forcing the issue out of respect for the club and fans he had been at for so long. Letting Dogs get replacement etc. But pre season has started now and Klem due back shortly, he wont want to sit idle once his holiday time is over so regardless of dogs recruitment he will be released.

 

[slotmachine]

No club is going to sign a contract with a clause in it guaranting a third party deal, because it would instantly not be a third party deal the second they do.

 

[Kurriboy]

No club is going to sign a contract with a clause in it guaranting a third party deal, because it would instantly not be a third party deal the second they do.

Sure, maybe, but there can be second hidden contracts that we don't see. Even a get out clause is not the club guaranteeing the TPA, it is saying if player does not get said event happen he can leave, much like UK players sometimes have a get out clause stating they can leave if an NRL club comes knocking.

 

[cowboyman]

No they don't, when you have players saying they are waiting on a club to arrange a TPA and will know their future soon lol, sure thing. When you have a player say how the deals work is your manager negotiates a deal with a club for 500k per year, and when you turn up to sign the contract there is a contract for 400 and a TPA contract for 100 sitting there lol.

Like I said, there is the pretendy world that everyone pretends is real, and then there is what actually happens.

Doesn’t matter what the players say... they are still 3rd party with the club holding no legal responsibility over them. If the Dogs were responsible for this 3rd party contract then Klemmer currently wouldn’t be contracted to the Dogs right now correct? Thank you.

Klemmer hasn’t got a leg to stand on against the Dogs.

 

[cowboyman]

No club is going to sign a contract with a clause in it guaranting a third party deal, because it would instantly not be a third party deal the second they do.

Thank you. Kurriboy will come around one day.

We all know clubs are involved in them but legally they have no responsibly for them.

Just an easy way for the top NRL players to get more money so the NRL turns a blind eye to it.

It’s really not that hard to understand.

 

[Kurriboy]

Doesn’t matter what the players say... they are still 3rd party with the club holding no legal responsibility over them. If the Dogs were responsible for this 3rd party contract then Klemmer currently wouldn’t be contracted to the Dogs right now correct? Thank you.

Klemmer hasn’t got a leg to stand on against the Dogs.

Sigh.

Klemmer is contracted to the dogs right now sure, won't be in a little bit though. If Klemmer has no leg to stand on then why are the dogs releasing him, why were they only "hopeful" he would stay vs enforcing a contract?

Not too long back Klemmer was untouchable apparently, not going anywhere, the last person they would release, all from the dogs own mouths. Yet here we are.

Your a crack up I swear!

3rd party with the club holding no legal responsibility over them.

Once again, a get out clause is not a club guaranteeing the player will get the money, it is an option the player can exercise if they don't get the money. Either way, the club does not pay the TPA to the player so they are not guaranteeing that money.

Really isn't hard. I wonder why whenever a salary cap rort hits the fan, you hear clubs stating their position is that they are compliant with the rules. Then the NRL rain on their parade and sanctions occur. The reason is that the clubs have promised the TPA in whatever inventive way they thought of would get around the rules, the NRL did not agree and there you go.

Simples.

 

[slotmachine]

Seeing as klemmer has apparently asked the dogs for a release three times already, you'd think he would have activated this iron clad clause already, if it exists.

 

[cowboyman]

Sigh.

Klemmer is contracted to the dogs right now sure, won't be in a little bit though. If Klemmer has no leg to stand on then why are the dogs releasing him, why were they only "hopeful" he would stay vs enforcing a contract?

Not too long back Klemmer was untouchable apparently, not going anywhere, the last person they would release, all from the dogs own mouths. Yet here we are.

Your a crack up I swear!

I’m saying he won’t have a leg to stand on if he took the Dogs to court like you suggested.

He can ask for a release and chuck a tanty all he likes if by some chance the Dogs refuse it. He won’t have a leg to stand on if that happens.

That’s just common sense. Something you are currently lacking.

 

[Kurriboy]

I’m saying he won’t have a leg to stand on if he took the Dogs to court like you suggested.

He can ask for a release and chuck a tanty all he likes if by some chance the Dogs refuse it. He won’t have a leg to stand on if that happens.

That’s just common sense. Something you are currently lacking.

Ok, and all of this is why the dogs are enforcing their iron clad contract right. Klemmer has no choice but to play for them. They were so certain he wasn't going anywhere. Untouchable.

I'd love to see them try and enforce it and see what happens. It is not I that has no idea I am afraid.

I'd also love to see a player actually take a club to court to enforce a TPA and this whole pretendy stuff can be exposed for once and for all.

They won't enforce anything, as they can't. The end.

 

[knightime]

What part of 3rd party payments do people not understand?

Klemmer won’t have a leg to stand on against the Dogs due to those 3rd party payments. Dogs will be at arms length away and have no legal obligation to them therefore aren’t responsible for them.

I’m amazed at how many people can’t/haven’t grasped that yet.

I know very little about TPAs. I wouldn't be surprised if his contract with the Dogs allows him to terminate it where TPAs are not honoured. That is not a guarantee by the Dogs, but rather an avenue for him to terminate the contract if those collateral deals fall through. That said, I imagine if he had such a clause, he would have terminated the contract already if the TPAs were not being honoured. I think it's genuinely due to personal reasons, because Sydney is a rat race, and because we're offering substantially more coin than the Dogs at the moment.

 

[cowboyman]

Ok, and all of this is why the dogs are enforcing their iron clad contract right. Klemmer has no choice but to play for them. They were so certain he wasn't going anywhere. Untouchable.

I'd love to see them try and enforce it and see what happens. It is not I that has no idea I am afraid.

I'd also love to see a player actually take a club to court to enforce a TPA and this whole pretendy stuff can be exposed for once and for all.

They won't enforce anything, as they can't. The end.

Well yes they are enforcing this contract right now. Unless I’m mistaking and he has been released already?....

In all likely will release him if they find a suitable replacement. Doesn’t mean the Dogs couldn’t enforce his contract if they wanted to