Time for a divorse Mrs Carney

[jinkin jimmy]

I'm in the Fraggle/DaveO camp on this one. Imagine the roles reversed. Wigan tell Carney midway throught the season that they are desperate to sign, say, Calderwood next season to play on Carney's wing, even though Carney has a year left on his contract.

They tell him they could wait until next year, but feel that the time to get Calderwood is right now, so Brian, would you please leave us a year early?

They have been good enough to give him half a season to find another club, after all.

Carney would be telling all and sundry that he expects his club to honour his contract blah blah blah.

The whole thing infuriates me. I don't want to see that t*$$*r in a Wigan shirt again. In fact, I'm disappointed the club haven't told him to either stay full term or leave immediately.

[adrenalinxx]

There's no notice period in a fixed-term contract, hence then name "fixed term". The notice period is, effectively, the end of the contract as agreed by both parties when they sign the contract. There may be a get-out clause, whereby one side or the other can end the contract based on specific conditions (eg relegation from SL) but "I want out" isn't usually enough reason. Remember, lots of people this season have said "we've got to get rid of x, y and z", but it's not so easy since the player can refuse to leave or can demand compensation for the breach of contract. This is no different except it's the club wanting to protect its interests and investment.

This has no real relevance because both Wigan and Brain Carney agree that he should be released.

Sports contracts are based on "you play we pay" when Brian Carney doesn't train then Wigan don't have to pay him. Right now Carney is being paid £0 by Wigan because he is injured and can't play Carneys wages comes from his insurance.

So a three year deal means Carney players for 3 years Carney gets paid for 3 years it does not mean Carney is the property of Wigan Warriors for 3 years I’m not saying he can just get up and leave the contract does mean that has to stay at Wigan but all people can be released from a contract on request from either club or player. Of course either of them can demand money for not fulfilling the contract but it very rarely happens if the player has requested it.

[adrenalinxx]

I'm in the Fraggle/DaveO camp on this one. Imagine the roles reversed. Wigan tell Carney midway throught the season that they are desperate to sign, say, Calderwood next season to play on Carney's wing, even though Carney has a year left on his contract.

They tell him they could wait until next year, but feel that the time to get Calderwood is right now, so Brian, would you please leave us a year early?

They have been good enough to give him half a season to find another club, after all.

Carney would be telling all and sundry that he expects his club to honour his contract blah blah blah.

The whole thing infuriates me. I don't want to see that t*$$*r in a Wigan shirt again. In fact, I'm disappointed the club haven't told him to either stay full term or leave immediately.

Didn't Luke still have a year left on his contract when we shipped him off to Salford and didn't Gilmour still have a year on his contract when he went to Bradford.

If Wigan decided this summer that Steven Wild isn't need and they decide to sell him to say Hull are you going to stage a protest saying that players arn't allowed to move clubs if there under contract.

If Wigan find a new centre and decided that they have to release DV because we need space on the over sea quota are you going to protest then to saying that we shouldn't get rid DV even if he is bad, he's staying at Wigan because he's signed a contract.

I think not !!

[Matthew]

The situation with Robinson and Gilmour proves how one sided it is...

Had Robinson or Gilmour refused to leave (and if I remember rightly Gilmour wanted to leave - Wigan were unlikely to get rid of a player who was "young player of the year" only 12 months previously) then Wigan would have had to honour their contracts and continue to pay them. The club could not simply tear up their contracts or ask they to be released.

To my recollection Robinson left because his contract was up and there wasn't a space for him in the 20/20 - the club are not duty bound to offer a new contract just because a player wants to stay.

To different scenarios - but both demonstrating the advantage that players have over the clubs

[jinkin jimmy]

Didn't Luke still have a year left on his contract when we shipped him off to Salford and didn't Gilmour still have a year on his contract when he went to Bradford.

I don't know how long they had left on their contracts. My understanding is that Robinson went for disciplinary reasons and Gilmour was a victim of the salary cap. The point is they were both fixed up with a club (Gilmour's move was the best thing to happen to him).

Carney has given us half a season to find a replacement. Again, roles reversed would see us asking Carney to leave early and find himself a club. My point again is that if we did this Carney would be more than happy to point out all the reasons why a contract should be honoured. Could you see Carney making the statement "I don't want to stand in Wigan's way" and the club saying "we are grateful to Brian"?

If Wigan decided this summer that Steven Wild isn't need and they decide to sell him to say Hull are you going to stage a protest say that players arn't allowed to move clubs if there under contract.

What are you on about? If Hull approach Wigan about Wild, agree terms, pay a transfer fee, etc that's fine. What wouldn't be acceptable is for Wild to put the word out all over Yorkshire that he would love to play there, Hull go public saying they have agreed terms, then Wild says to Wigan "can I leave please?" That's what Carney has done!

If Wigan find a new centre and decided that they have to release DV because we need space on the over sea quota are you going to protest then to saying that we should get DV even if he is bad, he's staying at Wigan because he's signed a contract.

If Wigan release DV they will have to pay him the money he would have earned for the duration of his contract!! How come when the roles are reversed Carney is allowed to walk away with the club receiving no recompense?

[Fraggle]

adrenalinxx posted:
Sports contracts are based on "you play we pay" when Brian Carney doesn't train then Wigan don't have to pay him. Right now Carney is being paid £0 by Wigan because he is injured and can't play Carneys wages comes from his insurance.

Are you sure about this? Seems a bit unlikely to me, especially when, in football, you have Real Madrid moaning about how much some English bloke is costing them that they bought last year but hasn't yet played a game. What happens when a player isn't picked for several weeks? In the unlikely event we had a full squad to pick from, would the extra 14 players in our squad who didn't make the 17 not get paid? I don't think so. Remember ML has said that recruitment for this season has been hampered by the fact that Hock and Lockers can't be removed from the salary cap - surely if they were not being paid by the club then there would be no problem with releasing them from the salary cap straightjacket? And, admittedly I don't know, but I'm surprised that insurance companies would agree to this as virtually all professional sports people get injured from time-to-time, are paid expensive salaries, and the insurance companies would be constantly paying out which is not something they are inclined to do. How much are the insurance premiums? They must at least equal the salaries for each player if the insurance companies are expected to pay up whenever someone gets injured. I was under the impression that insurance covered medical treatment and some support for players whose careers are cut short through injury where the player is unable to fulfill their contractual obligations over a long period, but not for short-term injuries. Fair enough if I'm wrong, but it goes against all experiences I've had with insurance companies in the past.

[adrenalinxx]

Are you sure about this? Seems a bit unlikely to me, especially when, in football, you have Real Madrid moaning about how much some English bloke is costing them that they bought last year but hasn't yet played a game.

Yep thats how it works.(providing the club has insured their players against injury which most big clubs do)
I think you are refering to Woodgate at Madrid who has not played a game since they bought him because he is injured. The reason they are complaining is because they club has to pay money into the insurance which builds up so if player gets injured the player can take money from that. The stiuation with Woodgate means that as soon as Madrid are putting money in it's going out straight away. If a player is sold from a club any remain money on the players insurance goes back to the club.

What happens when a player isn't picked for several weeks? In the unlikely event we had a full squad to pick from, would the extra 14 players in our squad who didn't make the 17 not get paid?

There is a rule but i forgotten what it's called but basically if a player can train they are part of the team therefore are paid.

Remember ML has said that recruitment for this season has been hampered by the fact that Hock and Lockers can't be removed from the salary cap - surely if they were not being paid by the club then there would be no problem with releasing them from the salary cap straightjacket?

Salary Cap rules apply to the contract the club has even if the player isn't actually being paid.

And, admittedly I don't know, but I'm surprised that insurance companies would agree to this as virtually all professional sports people get injured from time-to-time, are paid expensive salaries, and the insurance companies would be constantly paying out which is not something they are inclined to do

Doesn't work in the same way that normal insurance works. Look at as more of a bank account for injured players.

I think the whole idea actually comes from when football club didn't have much money and sometimes a club would lose all it's money during a season which would leave injured player with no money and unable to get any money. So they changed the rules and said injured players much have access to some money some how.

[robjoenz]

adrenalinxx posted:
Yep thats how it works.(providing the club has insured their players against injury which most big clubs do)
I think you are refering to Woodgate at Madrid who has not played a game since they bought him because he is injured. The reason they are complaining is because they club has to pay money into the insurance which builds up so if player gets injured the player can take money from that. The stiuation with Woodgate means that as soon as Madrid are putting money in it's going out straight away. If a player is sold from a club any remain money on the players insurance goes back to the club.

I don't think you've got that right. It doesn't make any sense.

To use your last point in that insurance companies give unused premiums back to the insurer is rediculous, such an insurance company wouldn't last ten minutes. They need unclaimed premiums to cover the claims.

I have always been under the impression professional sportsmen get paid a salary (they need to live afterall). If they play they get paid, if they are dropped they get paid, if they are injured they get paid. Wigan would not struggle with the 20/20 rule if they paid per play because Carney, Orr, Radlinski, etc... would not play enough games in a season to earn £20k or play 20 games.

As you explain it if a coach didn't like a player he could drop him and he wouldn't be getting paid. He wouldn't be injured therefore he wouldn't be able to claim for insurance. He would also be under contract to the club so he would not be able to join another club in order to earn his living. Your theory doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[robjoenz]

My thoughts on Carney is that he has behaved childishly. Publically commenting on what he wants to do has not only put pressure on Wigan but it has also proved he doesn't really care much about Wigan.

I had some time for Farrell leaving the sport because I think, despite not honouring his remaining contract, he did it in a professional manner. I get the impression Carney is just getting too big for his injured boots.

I reckon they ought to drop him and play someone whos heart is in Wigan RL. Colbon would do for me!

[AncientWarrior]

DaveO posted:
According to the news on the total rl web site Carney wants Wigan to release him from his contract next year so he can get a feel for playing in the NRL with Newcastle prior to joining his queensland club in 2007.

What an unprofessional git.

He has got what he wanted in 2007, a chance to play in the NRL but unlike other players who understand they must see out their commitments to their current clubs he doesn't even want to do that.

Has Logan, Richards, Feca or Fletcher asked to quit their clubs early? Are they taking it easy or playing poorly for their current clubs before coming here?

No.

I was hoping he would get fit and like the four players mentioned above do his best for the club before taking up his new challenge but no, not Brian.

If this is his attitude I'd not play him again this season and give his place to someone who wants it.

I'd then give him the option of getting out of his contract at no cost to the club and bid him good riddance.

I hope he doesn't pull the shirt on again to be honest.

He certainly won't be remembered as a Wigan great with this attitude.

He wont be remembered full stop. He is not Wigan quality.

Has it not occurred to anyone that it is to Wigan's advantage to offload him?

To keep banging on about enforcing contracts smacks of living in cloud cuckoo land. Contracts are made to be broken and are scarcely worth the paper they're written on.

When you see St Helens 'male bonding' before a game, it means that each and every one of the selected players is giving 100% to the cause. What price a 'disgruntled' player joining in this commitment to the team effort when everyone knows he doesn't mean it and that he will not 'die' for the team.

Enforcing a contract is a waste of time and completely counter-productive.

Well done adrenalinxx for standing your corner against the 'big boys' of this site!!!!!