is that first statement somewhat contradictory? Contract needs to be in the best interests of BOTH parties v What HE wants is not the first priority? Does a team really want someone on their books who doesn't want to be there? I know Rebels fans were up in arms (as were Force fans, and others) about the treatment of players during the 5 to 4 process, particularly their mental wellness. Surely keeping a player for spite when he doesn't want to be there is hardly looking after his mental welfare.
How is it contradictory? In the interests of both means his wishes might not align with the Rebels management at all. So in this case, what might be an aligned interest is for Lance to play rugby (his wish) and our requirement he doesn’t add value to our competitors (Rebels wish). Therefore, play Dewar or go overseas. I’m ok with that.
So he wants to go to the Reds? Sorry Lance, but you signed a legal document only very recently to go to the Rebels.
As for mental health, FFS, the bloke has a contract and a regular pay check that is agreed and guaranteed. You really think that is the same as 90- odd blokes at the Force or Rebels not knowing if they would be employed in a few months time?
He signed a deal. His employers can do as they wish with him. If you think that s spiteful, I suggest his manager sit with RUPA to design some training about what a contract is.