R360

They said each case will be treated as a case by case basis

So I rewound think if your off contract you’ll be fine coming back. If your under contract and break your contract, then that’ll be where the 10 year ban comes in

It’ll also depend on who the player is and their profile in the game.

Take Papy and Jye Grey for example….. Papy you’d think would come straight back in if he went to R360. While Jye Gray would probably get the 10 year ban
 
Yeah Vlandys loves a headline without actually thinking things through doesn’t he? That said if you sign a contract there then no issue with a ban being the length of the contract, if you’re unhappy you suck it up.
 
Roundtable said:
Good luck with that withstanding a legal challenge
Click to expand...
The Contracts that players execute with clubs and by default the NRL aren't subject to the standard corporate protections found in the award of most sectors influenced by unions, which is where most of those protections come from. The NRL is probably within its rights to enforce that sort of stuff.
 
Les Misérables said:
The Contracts that players execute with clubs and by default the NRL aren't subject to the standard corporate protections found in the award of most sectors influenced by unions, which is where most of those protections come from. The NRL is probably within its rights to enforce that sort of stuff.
Click to expand...
Agree that rugby player contracts are not the same as general employment contracts but that didn’t stop the Bosman and Kolpak rulings upholding standards in player contracts that would naturally apply to non-players.

If it gets to that situation and player challenges a ban they should do it in Europe!
 
Does this apply to players whose contracts lapse?
Eg. NAS is a free agent at the moment. Storm released him. Can he go to Rugby 360 on a 1 year deal (hypothetically) and then come back?

Or only those that break current NRL contracts?
Eg. Lomax fishing for an exit of the remaining years at Eels to go.

Or the middle ground where a player is contracted to NRL club, but they mutually decide to part ways (with or without financial compensation to club from 360). Eg Storm could allow Paps to go early.

Or simply anybody that plays Rugby360.


In the above, I think NAS can do whatever he wants.

Could agree that Lomax gets a NRL ban for breaking his existing contract.

Paps scenario is a bit grey. But think that the club essentially get the final say whether or not they are happy to sign the release (all good) or not (ban).
 
bremsstrahlung said:
Does this apply to players whose contracts lapse?
Eg. NAS is a free agent at the moment. Storm released him. Can he go to Rugby 360 on a 1 year deal (hypothetically) and then come back?

Or only those that break current NRL contracts?
Eg. Lomax fishing for an exit of the remaining years at Eels to go.

Or the middle ground where a player is contracted to NRL club, but they mutually decide to part ways (with or without financial compensation to club from 360). Eg Storm could allow Paps to go early.

Or simply anybody that plays Rugby360.


In the above, I think NAS can do whatever he wants.

Could agree that Lomax gets a NRL ban for breaking his existing contract.

Paps scenario is a bit grey. But think that the club essentially get the final say whether or not they are happy to sign the release (all good) or not (ban).
Click to expand...

What if the club agrees to release him, it's no longer classified a break of contract right? So how does the NRL manage that?
 
JOJO82 said:
What if the club agrees to release him, it's no longer classified a break of contract right? So how does the NRL manage that?
Click to expand...
I guess these “ban” threats give clubs a bit of freedom and perhaps the decision lies with clubs.

If they agree to release a player - fair game imo. Eg if say Storm and Paps reach an agreement, sweet. Or if Storm are paid a fee to release him, that they are happy with, I think that’s fair game.

But, if they don’t want to release the player then I think they should be able to dig their heels in on this one, and if the player wants to go, ban. Eg if Lomax wants to go and Eels aren’t happy with any remuneration offered or if Lomax walks out, they should be able to go to NRL and say, we want him to stay, we aren’t being offered acceptable remuneration - we’d like to enforce the ban.

(I guess the downside with this is if Eels were offered 2M to let him go, and they say no, get him banned from returning to NRL, they lose Lomax and the 2M. So it’d be perhaps up to Eels to negotiate 2M release fee, and banned from playing in NRL for the remainder of his contract.)


Players breaking contract between NRL clubs is one thing, but from an NRL perspective, at least the talent stays in NRL. It’s just crap for the clubs that aren’t really compensated - eg Upton situation. There was absolutely zero reward/compensation for Knights signing her to a long term contract and it’s hard to force - I’m not sure we want to go down the path of EPL/football and offering transfer fees etc especially when we are limited by salary cap. There’s no real benefit from financial fees. Going from NRL club to NRL club - im not sure what a suitable remuneration is.
 
For very simple terms the way I read it, even if the player was released the NRL will continue to see it as a form of treason and will hit you with the ban on the way out, it states even those that are negotiating with the rival promotion, or even giving a letter of intent will be hit with the same ban.

I like it, it’s basic business when dealing with the rise of a rival, lay out the risks of leaving the sport that made you and prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Obviously they have top tier lawyers telling them if it’s allowed or not, and clearly it is as they have put the statement out explaining exactly what will happen and what will make it happen

R360 is a promotion that’s doesn’t care for the sport but for the money it provides, no pathways, no development system, hell they aren’t even going for their own players, if I was a NRL player I’d be wondering if it’s all worth it to get rubbed out of the game just for a little extra coin that they are getting a lot of anyway.

Ok the flip side we will get to see who actually loves the sport and who is just in it for the money
 
I can't think of any reason this start up comp would want rugby league players for their first comp.

I can think of millions of reasons they would want to get headlines by pretending to be interested in all our best players - those being the millions of dollars they might get from a TV deal in Australia if they get enough free publicity.

V'landys etc are trying to kill the story, because all it is is Rugby Union getting it's usual free kick by pretending they are going to inflict some damage on League.

All a publicity stunt - and it's working so far.
 
Agreed, publicity is the reason, make noises of being interested in players, might get a bit of interest but unlikely to afford many if offering x$millions per player. They want the public interested so they watch the game and increase revenue
 
Roundtable said:
If R360 doesn't have ridiculous video refereeing, where certain plays are subjected to a forensic audit that doesnt apply to the rest of the game ( and this destroying the spectacle,) they might have a USP vs what the NRL has become. Its like they are wanting to be disrupted.
Click to expand...
Oh please, the league is on the up something crazy breaking records every year, moving into America and getting tv deals and so on, league is evolving like every sport under the sun that is a major player, you might not like it but these are facts, league is getting much more popular which is crazy to say as it was already extremely popular.

I honestly dont think R360 could compete, I look at this like the Saudis in football, yeah they’ll take some good prospects and a lot of over the hill players and it will be a competition that’s just there and that’s that, it won’t complete with the big dogs, in union maybe but not League it’s not a secret Union is on its last legs here and can’t compete with the NRL in terms of most things especially money and sponsorships
 
Lefty said:
Surely the NRL would have got legal advice that the ban would withstand a legal challenge.
Click to expand...

Your right Lefty they would have got legal advice. But evey company that has a commercial agreement challeged at court and loses has had legal advice when drafting the agreement. It certainly doesnt mean the NRL on 100% solid ground.

Many things are extremely grey in commercial law. The players arent under awards, but still have rights. Most highly paid positions are outside awards but have protections. NRL is just manuevering it seems trying to scare players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top