Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
...<snip> what will happen to the players who are not required by their S15 teams during the course of the season? Don't they get to play anywhere?
Wockka has space for them at Balmain Footy club.
...<snip> what will happen to the players who are not required by their S15 teams during the course of the season? Don't they get to play anywhere?
Wockka has space for them at Balmain Footy club.
Most ,if not all first grade players in the Shute Shield have a contractual agreement with their club.This would supersede subsequent agreements with a S15 franchise.I would imagineHaving re-read this it seems as though the ARU is only planning to ratify the right of the S15 teams to stop players returning to their clubs. This is only going to piss off the clubs, the players and the fans as there won't be any consistency. All or nothing IMO. Once their S15 commitments are over all the players should be allowed to play for their club side or none at all.
Most ,if not all first grade players in the Shute Shield have a contractual agreement with their club.This would supersede subsequent agreements with a S15 franchise.I would imagine
this would be an important consideration for players & Super15 clubs when considering a contract between the two.
In my ,("significant"),experience in the Shute Shield,the majority of first grade & fringe players are paid by their club.Hence my comment above.I understand that Randwick clubFor a contract to be legally binding between two parties there must some consideration (ie payment) in return for services or product provided. If players are not being paid directly by their clubs then there is no legal contract.
My understanding is that in the vast majority of cases the S15 contracts are the only legal contracts with the exception of those that also have a top up contract with the ARU. The agreement players have with their clubs is only a technicality if they are not being paid. Although the clubs have to provide a release if the player wants to go elsewhere, this is generally just an acknowledgement that the club is not paying the player or, if they are, the contract has expired.
Exceptions occur with players like David Harvey who "signed" with Eastwood a few years ago only for Gordon to point out he had an existing contract with them ie they were paying him and would not release him.
In my ,("significant"),experience in the Shute Shield,the majority of first grade & fringe players are paid by their club.Hence my comment above.I understand that Randwick club
has said that they are not paying their players.There may be other exceptions & denials.And of course "payments" can take a number of forms .Not surprisingly clubs
subsequently seek to protect their position by means of a contract agreed to by the player.This arrangement also serves to protect the interest of the player.This all might sound obvious,however your post above suggests that you may not be aware of how commonly this practice occurs.
For a contract to be legally binding between two parties there must some consideration (ie payment) in return for services or product provided. If players are not being paid directly by their clubs then there is no legal contract.
Yes ,many players are contracted for more than one year.This is influenced by what the club thinks is a reasonable reward for what theSorry, I was mainly talking about the S15 contracted players where the clubs certainly don't appear to have any legal hold over them or, if they have done in the past, it sounds as though the ARU is about to attempt to override it.
How long is the average club player's contract in your experience?
Is it ever longer than 1 year?
Yes ,many players are contracted for more than one year.This is influenced by what the club thinks is a reasonable reward for what the
club is giving or doing for the player.Of course there are many instances when a club does not attempt to enforce an agreement ,e.g. when
a player receives a better opportunity to play overseas,or switch to League.It can also be an expensive exercise for a club if they wish to test a contract at law.
Legal opinion which I have seen however ,is that in general terms ,contracts between a club & player are potentially enforceable , irrespective of the position
of the ARU.I am interested in hearing the opinion of others on this site with more legal expertise than I.
It should not be ignored that a lot a players have agents who are part of the negotiations ,including in some instances,with colts players.Also some agreements are negotiated
& signed off by parents on behalf of their underage son,a factor which can also complicate the picture.
I believe that some consideration should be given to clubs who suddenly have a player whisked away never to be seen again in effect ,after considerable investment by them in the player.This may be the case with an ever increasing number of players following the recent announcement by the ARU mentioned above.
The introduction of another competition eg.a second tier super 15, played during the Shute Shield season,with permanent loss of even more players than currently is the case,
clearly pushes the latter another step down the hierarchical ladder & superimposes on the existing dwindling level of interest which we currently observe.
Here's an idea. Put all the players back into Sydney & Qld Premier comps (if the players wish) if they don't - let them play locally. And give the club players the best test of rugby skill they can get by playing against Super 15 contracted players as much as possible. How hard is it!
Maybe because common sense isn't that common.
Rugby Central I would disagree if you intend to suggest that Shute Shield is not a quality comp: when you consider all the distractions and impediments it is a pretty bloody good comp.
For example, the discounted on-line tickets to tomorrow's GF which are actually more expensive than paying at the gate!