Player contracts/managers

[Teddy]

A little bit off topic here I had a look around the forums to see if anyone has posted anything about it, however I couldn’t find anything so my question is, how does a player/manager decide when to break a contract or get out of one for whatever reason be it more money, family reason, home sickness (seemingly without so much as a slap on the wrist) its all rubbish in the real world you sign on the dotted line you see out contracts break them and you pay the consequence and this happens mostly at the most in opportune times.
What is the point of a contract when it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on case in point Ryan Matterson, Josh Addo Carr?

[Rooster1908]

Ah yes but when we want to get rid of players they wont leave .
Lol see how I made this about Latrell

[ism22]

Long story short if you break a contract you've generally gotta provide some sort of compensation. For example SBW owed the Doggies $$$ and he paid up. He wouldn't have been allowed to play in the NRL if he didn't. Or I dunno... Carter/Watts/Meehan...etc... we terminated their contracts without compo because they breached some pretty darn serious conditions. Guys like Myles we were more than happy to release early so they could GTFO. The Sharks terminated Carney and had to pay him $$$ coz he demonstrated he hadn't breached. Contracts can't always move forward with both parties working together smoothly! Sometimes parting ways is better for both.

Think of household examples:
- If you're renting and you terminate your lease, you might need to compensate the landlord. They can't exactly say no if you've served notice, moved your gear out, cleaned up, handed the keys back...etc.
- If a shonky tradie does some work and you're not happy with it you might not want them to fix it. Instead you might wanna get your $$$ back and have it fixed by a more capable tradie (similarly with a sacked NRL player... you might not actually want them to come back and play footy for you).

IMO the old argument that 'a contract is worthless if it can be broken' doesn't stack up. That's a large part of what a good contract's for... making sure you're protected if the other party doesn't deliver.

[Teddy]

Long story short if you break a contract you've generally gotta provide some sort of compensation. For example SBW owed the Doggies $$$ and he paid up. He wouldn't have been allowed to play in the NRL if he didn't. Or I dunno... Carter/Watts/Meehan...etc... we terminated their contracts without compo because they breached some pretty darn serious conditions. Guys like Myles we were more than happy to release early so they could GTFO. The Sharks terminated Carney and had to pay him $$$ coz he demonstrated he hadn't breached. Contracts can't always move forward with both parties working together smoothly! Sometimes parting ways is better for both.

Think of household examples:
- If you're renting and you terminate your lease, you might need to compensate the landlord. They can't exactly say no if you've served notice, moved your gear out, cleaned up, handed the keys back...etc.
- If a shonky tradie does some work and you're not happy with it you might not want them to fix it. Instead you might wanna get your $$$ back and have it fixed by a more capable tradie (similarly with a sacked NRL player... you might not actually want them to come back and play footy for you).

IMO the old argument that 'a contract is worthless if it can be broken' doesn't stack up. That's a large part of what a good contract's for... making sure you're protected if the other party doesn't deliver.

Thank you for clearing that up, I guess I didn’t see that way being in a sport in this situation with Lats I guess it probably is good business to just let him go.
Cheers ism22

[The Skeez]

As it’s a team game, harmony is important.

If you have a player who is unhappy and looking elsewhere you may consider letting them go, despite their talent.

Especially when they are consuming 13% of your total cap spend for the entire 30 man squad.

[Insider]

As it’s a team game, harmony is important.

If you have a player who is unhappy and looking elsewhere you may consider letting them go, despite their talent.

Especially when they are consuming 13% of your total cap spend for the entire 30 man squad.

Just over 8% actually, but your point is valid, he would have been our highest paid player after Teddy. Wonder what the plan was had he agreed and signed on for another 3 yrs. Someone else would have had to go.

[Thirteen]

Nothing wrong with breaking a contract if both parties agree to it. But yes it is frustrating to us the fans.

[The Skeez]

Just over 8% actually, but your point is valid, he would have been our highest paid player after Teddy. Wonder what the plan was had he agreed and signed on for another 3 yrs. Someone else would have had to go.

I stand corrected. Thanks Insider.

The timing Jared and Siua deals is significant. Especially Jared with the length of his contract.

[Mad_Rabid_Rooster]

Nothing wrong with breaking a contract if both parties agree to it. But yes it is frustrating to us the fans.

You're not wrong 13.