A W O L

[billyc38]

At the beginning of this thread I said about the Bunnies having to pay Bath a large amount of cash to bring slammin' Sam back to RL according to the Telegraph at the time Bath got more than the £500,000 they and the RFU spent on signing him.
When Charnley first signed for Sale I planned to go and watch him (obviously in my ????& jersey) but now I hope it all backfires on the sharks....they get relegated and SD ends up signing on.

[bill.inger]

23 DEC 2016 AVIVA PREMIERSHIP
N'hampton
24
Sale Sharks
5
HT 14-0


Justifies his signing I suppose. They'd have been nilled without him!

Hey up KW, you're back. I thought you were a gonner.

[jaws1]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a particulary "nice" thing to have done.

However, before we try to get on the RL high moral ground, it's no different to what RL did for years to RU players.

Whilst the RU players may have had a moral obligation to stay in their code, they didn't have a contractual one.

Solomona is no different.

Different circumstances when RL went for RU players they were amateur with no contract.Why did we pay a fee then Joel Tomkins when he came back to Wigan reason he was under contract

That's fine if you think the issue here is contractual rather than moral.

Why did the RU players sign for RL clubs it was for money they were under no obligation to their respective clubs as they were not under contract.They did so knowing that they would not be welcome at any RU grounds and would not be able to play RU again this is the risk they took.
Solomana was contracted to Castleford to play RL saying that he had resigned from RL to play RU sets the alarm bells ringing. I only hope that Castleford win their court case as this would be the death of RL RU would walk into and sign all our best players with no transfer fee at all they need to do is resign from RL and go to the dark side.
Bunnies had to pay a transfer fee to Bath for Burgess to take him back to the NRL as we did to get Joel Tomkins back to Wigan.

[butt monkey]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a particulary "nice" thing to have done.

However, before we try to get on the RL high moral ground, it's no different to what RL did for years to RU players.

Whilst the RU players may have had a moral obligation to stay in their code, they didn't have a contractual one.

Solomona is no different.

He is different. He had a contract. It's not rocket science. Irrespective of what you think of my debating qualifications you can't get behind that fact. It has nothing to do with 'nice' it's the law.

So if that player decided he couldn't play RL but could play another sport, the contract would prevent him doing so?

I think you are hitting the crux of the issue here

If a player simply decides to quit his chosen sport and move onto a different one (say League to Cricket) then why and how should to club losing out be compensated? Should they? Would Lancashire CCC pay a transfer fee to Wigan should (say for example only) George Williams decide that was where his future lay?

Now because this is a move from League to Union everyone says "contract" and expects a differing attitude

I am sure, and if you read the reasonable article on the BBC about it, that this tests the water regards future transfers between the codes and how if any, loopholes currently exist in the current system.

Diamond's change of wording is interesting. Might suggest Sale have made a mistake but without a copy of Solomona's contract and the legal position his agent and Sale will take to defend this signing we are only guessing what they will "accuse" RL and Castleford in particular

[fozzieskem]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a particulary "nice" thing to have done.

However, before we try to get on the RL high moral ground, it's no different to what RL did for years to RU players.

Whilst the RU players may have had a moral obligation to stay in their code, they didn't have a contractual one.

Solomona is no different.

Huge difference,back in days of yore the RU lads were "amatuers" all the RL clubs did was offered them a paid living all above board etc.

[billyc38]

I remember having Welsh union lads having trial games with us and they went on the programme as A N OTHER..because if it went wrong or they didn't get to grips with our game they could try and go back as if nothing happened RU caused that under handedness if a league lad played any format of union they could be open and still be accepted back into 13 aside.
Solomona signed a contract with Cas HE should have done the honourable thing......he's an adult the buck stops with HIM surely

[Wintergreen]

He is different. He had a contract. It's not rocket science. Irrespective of what you think of my debating qualifications you can't get behind that fact. It has nothing to do with 'nice' it's the law.

So if that player decided he couldn't play RL but could play another sport, the contract would prevent him doing so?

I think you are hitting the crux of the issue here

If a player simply decides to quit his chosen sport and move onto a different one (say League to Cricket) then why and how should to club losing out be compensated? Should they? Would Lancashire CCC pay a transfer fee to Wigan should (say for example only) George Williams decide that was where his future lay?

Now because this is a move from League to Union everyone says "contract" and expects a differing attitude

I am sure, and if you read the reasonable article on the BBC about it, that this tests the water regards future transfers between the codes and how if any, loopholes currently exist in the current system.

Diamond's change of wording is interesting. Might suggest Sale have made a mistake but without a copy of Solomona's contract and the legal position his agent and Sale will take to defend this signing we are only guessing what they will "accuse" RL and Castleford in particular

Finally, someone who can see the issue!

[butt monkey]

Best case scenario I can see here, despite everyone's protestations about contracts/wrongdoings/inducements etc etc is that the Courts will force Solomona to pay Castleford to the value of his remaining contract (which might be £50k per season) so Castleford could theoretically only get £100k and Sale pay nothing

Like it, lump it but transfer fee's between the codes might just have ended.

Player "a" decides to "retire" and swap codes and their could be nothing any club can do about it apart from renegotiate all their current contracts :conf:

[AncientWarrior]

The point that some posters seem to have missed is that Solomona is still contracted to Castleford and bound by a (presumably) standard contract, the like of which has been used throughout the game since time immemorial. He is legally bound to play rugby league for them during the currency of the contract. He cannot "retire". He must comply with the terms of the contract. Neither can he change sports. He must continue unless prevented from carrying out his obligations say by serious injury.

If he fails to do these things, he is in breach of the contract. Anyone who assists or induces him to break his contract is guilty of 'tortious interference' and may be subject to an Order for Punitive Damages.

Cas are entitled to Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages.

[butt monkey]

The point that some posters seem to have missed is that Solomona is still contracted to Castleford and bound by a (presumably) standard contract, the like of which has been used throughout the game since time immemorial.

I haven't read anyone claim to the contradictory

He is legally bound to play rugby league for them during the currency of the contract. He cannot "retire". He must comply with the terms of the contract. Neither can he change sports. He must continue unless prevented from carrying out his obligations say by serious injury.

Why can he not retire? Why can he not change sports? Are these stipultaions written into his contract? Hence why at most I guess Castleford may only be able to retain his registration should he ever return to League. What happens if he returned AFTER his RL contract expires would be guesswork but I would assume he would simply become a "free agent" again

If he fails to do these things, he is in breach of the contract. Anyone who assists or induces him to break his contract is guilty of 'tortious interference' and may be subject to an Order for Punitive Damages.

Cas are entitled to Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages.

Hence why I stated at most he might be forced to pay up the remaining contract to Castleford (whatever it was they were paying him) and nothing else.

I would be correct would I not AncientWarrior, that you either work or are currently in employment. Are you suggesting that in no way can you or should you EVER be allowed to gain employment elsewhere simply because you had a contract?