Sonny Bill Williams defects to union - cont.

[Ab]

Oh dear. I think rugby league gonna get raped.

THE Bulldogs defector Sonny Bill Williams will return fire against the NRL's legal threats by challenging its salary cap, a move that could destroy the financial foundations of Australia's four football codes.

The NRL and Bulldogs launched court action against Williams yesterday for what they say is breach of a "watertight" contract. But Williams's lawyers will argue that the salary cap is an unreasonable restraint of trade - and some legal experts suggest he could succeed.

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news...097150152.html

Compuhyperglobalmegalol.

[blynk]

Man, he made a seriously bad choice by changing manager. I think that is what started this downhill spiral.
And now I am starting to think he is a dick more and more (or he is so stupid, that he is just a puppet doing what the manager says).

If he didn't like the salary cap, then he should of done something when his contract was up, not 8 months later. He may be a promising player, but I hope they do ban him from the NRL, and the IRB follow suit.

GL at taking the salary cap to court.

[Haydos]

Nasser Khoder is the slimy shit that is Mundine's manager too.

Ultimately, if the NRL believe that court case could severely impact their salary caps, I think you'll see them remove action against Sonny Bill. Sounds like Sonny Bill's told his manager to chuck 50k at a lawyer to find him a loophole and he's found one.

[Kryten]

Is this shit for real?

Originally Posted by Sydney Morning Herald

The NRL chief executive David Gallop and the Bulldogs chief executive Todd Greenberg launched a legal campaign they warned may result in Williams's assets being seized and the player himself arrested or even jailed.

"Ultimately, if these proceedings were to reach the end conclusion and he was to ignore them, then he's facing criminal charges," Mr Gallop said. "He's liable to criminal charges which can involve arrest, can involve seizure of his assets in Australia."

Uh, yeah - that'd be a wicked PR move.

[herp]

Sonny Bill is just looking out for himself, bad luck for the kiwis, good luck for the AB's.

Here's hoping NZ follows SA's footsteps and allows foreign based players to be selected for the AB's.

[Haydos]

It has to be done eventually, we simply can't compete with the global market, as seen with football and even on a smaller scale, Rugby league.

Cricket is starting to see the same issues hit it. You've either got to allow guys to go overseas or see more Luke McCallister/Carl Hayman situations.

[Saladin]

There was an article in the DomPost today that pretty well nailed the NRL/Bulldogs hypocrisy; they're content to axe contracts at will when it suits them and they've happily let players walk out on contracts before (see Jamie Lyons) and yet welcomed them back with open arms later.

It's all cos he's a kiwi.

[blynk]

Saw the same article (in the herald). Didn't like it.
2 of the examples were Great Britain teams. Where they have a clause of if the player is out for 26 weeks in a year, then they can axe the contract. In a way thats fair enough.

The next example wass when they let a player go mid season. So what, they both agreed to cancel the contract. The Bulldogs may have even got some money for it. With SBW, the bulldogs obviously wanted to keep his talent. Its not like they were saying no, and then not selecting him.
They then talk about how the Bulldogs don't let release the NZ players to play for Kiwis. (Nothing really to do with the story)

The only valid point was the Lyons story, where he left after 2 years of a 4 year contract, and was welcomed back.

I doubt its because he is a kiwi.

[pig]

I don't agree with what he's done ( im gutted at the prospect of never seeing him play league again ) but i think the NRL & Gallop in particular are letting things get a bit personal. I can't understand how if the contracts that they have drawn up are so watertight then how did this happen ?
Very interesting read here

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news...097150218.html

[Ab]

This is the thing that rugby league has feared for years. At the moment, with the way player payments are structured, the entire NRL is basically breaking the law. It's a bunch of companies that theoretically compete with each other all getting together and doing a deal along the lines of "we'll keep our employees' salaries low so long as you agree to keep YOUR employees' salaries low, because overall that's best for all of our companies. Right? Deal." That's illegal, and described in those plain terms it's fucking dodgy. It doesn't matter if he has signed a contract if the behind-the-scenes deals that determined his employment terms were all illegal.

Now all of a sudden Sonny Bill appears to have an offer that gives him a good idea of his market value as a professional. Right now that seems to be around 1.5 million per year. And you have the Bulldogs going "Nononono, we Australian rugby league clubs got together and even though we are competition for each other we all agreed that none of us would pay you anything near that, and you signed a contract based on the agreement that we clubs made with each other about how much not to pay you, so come back, or we'll take you to court".

And for the first time it seems that an employee in that situation - tied down to a dodgy contract based on illegal agreements between "competing" companies - is standing firm and saying "Fine, see you in court." And the NRL all of a sudden is shitting bricks. This actually going to court is the last thing it wants. IANAL, but I work in Australia and I've sat through my fair share of meetings with lawyers about employment contracts and my layman's understanding of Australian employment law leads me to believe that Sonny Bill will win. Which means that EVERY league player's employment contract becomes null and void. And every league player and every league player's agent will be looking at how much money Sonny Bill and Ryan Cross and Mark Gasnier and Lote Tuqiri and Timana Tahu have been offered to play union, and every one of them will start fielding offers.

Every single league player. All off contract. All at once.

Whee!

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Kryten

Is this shit for real?

Uh, yeah - that'd be a wicked PR move.

Sounds dodgy to me: Contract law is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Worst they could do is force him into bankruptcy & claim against any unprotected assets.

[blynk]

Originally Posted by Ab

...

I agree with some of the stuff, but I guess it comes down to how related a "sports" employment contract is to a normal working contract, and what rules would apply.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by blynk

I agree with some of the stuff, but I guess it comes down to how related a "sports" employment contract is to a normal working contract, and what rules would apply.

There are not seperate laws for sports contracts in Aussie or NZ - it's the same laws as any other contract, therefore the same rules apply.

[blynk]

edit..... I will be back.

[fobski]

I Look forward to the impending court case.

[TnT]

Originally Posted by blynk

I agree with some of the stuff, but I guess it comes down to how related a "sports" employment contract is to a normal working contract, and what rules would apply.

Umm what? An employment contract, is an employment contract, it doesn't matter what job you're doing, and these guys are being paid to do a job. The fact that job is 'win a game of footy' is irrelevant.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by Ab

Every single league player. All off contract. All at once.

Whee!

Not to mention every AFL player, though where else are they going to find employment!

[blynk]

Originally Posted by TnT

Umm what? An employment contract, is an employment contract, it doesn't matter what job you're doing, and these guys are being paid to do a job. The fact that job is 'win a game of footy' is irrelevant.

Yeah, I was thinking more in terms of the Salary Cap, and how that would fit into it all.

[Ab]

That's the key phrase here. What you call "salary cap" I suspect the Australian courts will call "collusion between members of an illegal cartel". Companies that are in competition with each other can't do deals behind the scenes regarding each others' employees' salaries.

So, if Sonny Bill calls the NRL's bluff and goes to court, I suspect that the entire concept of a salary cap will be declared illegal. Which means every contract that was signed based on that illegal deal will get thrown out.

Right now if I was the NZRU I'd be drafting up a contract with Sonny Bill allowing him whatever "sabbatical" he wants in France so long as he makes himself available for the All Blacks down the line. But I don't credit the NZRU with the foresight required to pay the phone bill on time, so who knows.

But back to the subject at hand, if Sonny Bill successfully calls the NRL's bluff on this and gets a release, every other unhappy league player will walk. And if it goes to court and the salary cap is declared illegal, as it will be, every league player's contract gets thrown out whether they're happy or not. So by not backing down Sonny Bill has limited the NRLs options to a) fail, or b) epic fail.

I for one am laughing.

[crocos]

Imagine if this was in the States - they could get prosecuted under the RICO statues. That would completely fuck any chance of a continuing <insert any code here>.

[Ard Righ]

The whole of Australian sport works under salary cap. The NRL, AFL, ARU, and the A-League. If Sonny Bill wins, all of those codes will lose in a huge way. It will be open season on any professional contracted player in Australia.

I am not sure how cricket structure theirs, but I don't think they have a salary cap as such like the other codes do.

Consider the difference in payments between professional players in Australia vs Britain and Europe, and there's a strong legal case there for unreasonable restraint of trade, based around the salary cap issue.

I'd hate to say it, because it's a shit way to leave breaking a contract, but the NRL would do well to STFU and let him go.

[blynk]

The other thing however is that, in a way, they can pay him whatever they want. Its not a salary cap on an individual, its a salary cap on the amount of money the team can spend on their "employees".

I do see the point, and it will be very interesting to see what happens.

[pig]

Wasn't the last time anything like this came up when they still had the player draft ? Terry Hill was was wanting to go to Wests or something but got drafted to Easts - iirc he challenged it in court under similiar reasoning
( restraint of trade ) & won so no more player draft.

[MrTTTT]

i hope they run that lowlife SBW into the dirt.
what a cunt.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by MrTTTT

i hope they run that lowlife SBW into the dirt.
what a cunt.

So you'd stay in your job if another company offered to triple your salary to do the same basic job but with less responsibility?

[Ard Righ]

There is a quite coherent comment about the employment issues and player transfers I read on Yellow Fever forums

It relates to football player contracts, and cases from Europe, but parallels the arguments here. Some further reading in that thread with some intelligent debate...

Although that is an important ruling, you have to consider the other rulings as well. such as the Kolpak ruling, which extended Bosman to countries with an associate trading relationship with the EU, most notably the ACP countries and the Webster ruling, a post-Bosman ruling which formalised the 'buy-out' rules for disputed transfers of players still within their contract term

This will mean that next time there should be a "buy out clause" between clubs.

However there are a few notable things in this case to really consider.

1.) This would be the first time anything like this would involved a transfer between codes.
2.) This is between clubs from two different countries. As Australia is not part of the EU but is very much has an associate trading relationship with the EU so the Kolpak ruling goes into Sonny's defence.
3.) As Sonny has only fulfilled one of his five year contract this may challenge a number of things and perhaps extends to the other football codes
i.) FIFA has now a buy out clause in which an under 28 player can buy out the rest of his contract after three years. A 28 and over player can do so after two years. Should Sonny wins this case, this will be new case evidence gathered for a soccer player challenging this FIFA ruling that was the resulted after the Webster ruling.
ii.) Salary cap is an unreasonable restraint of trade as well as the long term effects of a five year contract. As it does not seem to be a NRL clause, in which FIFA has already done as the result of Webster ruling, then simply because there is no formalisation of free of trade movement of players in the NRL within their contract period, it is likely that Sonny could succeed in his bid.
4.) The Bosman, Kolpak and Webster ruling does not apply auotmatically to Sonny's case as only Soccer, Basketball and Cricket sports have applied this. But this is only applied in the EU and not in Australian Courts but they are good templates for his defence. As union and league is a minor sports in the EU, it has a very good chance for Sonny to win as there a lack of professionals ply his trade. However if his does not succeed in the Australian courts, then it would very likely he would succeed in the courts for international arbitration on sports.
5.) There is also the question of duty of care to the club because of the secretive nature of his leaving. But that will also be countered by Sonny's saying that he have fears of being heavy handed by club officials thus doing irreparable harm to Sonny. Plus other problems that is most likely to appear between Sonny and the club officials that we did not know about.
6.) There is the question of criminal charges, seizing assets and jailing. This is a bit difficult to check out but basically the assets that he brought on the money he had earned are still his. Anything else that the club has "gifted" to him are his as well and can not be taken about because it is done on good faith. Only "privileges" of good faith from the club can really be withdrawn. However, it may be that the court will ask Sonny to pay reparations to the club at a certain fee, in which he could include the sell of certain assets if he has not the cash.
7.) Because the nature of players able to ply their trade at a certain period of time in their age, the fact remains that the earning capacity can only be available on a limited time span for a player. This argument will support that the salary cap is an unreasonable restraint of trade when given under long contract basis as the trade changes from year to year as well as the nature of good faith.
8.) The argument for the salary cap is that the quota is a protect of the game's infrastructure. However, this has in the past been severely challenged by all clubs in the past as the salary cap has been broken on numerous occasions. The past record will indicate that the salary cap has been very low and unreasonable. With the salary cap not changing with CPI, there would be grounds for unreasonable restraint of trade as the valuation of the players increase by CPI and experience. To reach the top end of the club value without affecting other players value at 22 years of year, there is grounds for unfair market value on the player if the valuation is significantly higher. $3 million in two years is major revaluation of the players services compared to the $450,000 per year for the next 4 years. Thats $900,000 NRL club valuation against $3 million in two years. The serious loss of earning potential is a restriction to his sport trade.

Quite simply, in the courts, the restrictive manner of the sports infrasturcture verses player's freedom to ply his trade to the highest bidder when given the chance.

Because of the nature of being a professional sportman, it is not as clear cut as it would with other written business contracts. His sporting services are unique but the club could replace him with another sportman in the squad, the loss to the club is his unique/quality services not the function of the player in a team. So the price may not be a serviceable as the club would like. It is not ironclad that his services will reap montary returns (winning championship/gate-takings/sponsorship) to the club as no one player is bigger than the squad in order to wins as many other factors are involved.

Also it is close to the nature of someone "retiring" from the sport and since he has not gone to his NRL rivals but rather changed codes and has "virtually" left the sport all together then there is a basis for fair and equitable departure. Although the NRL officials may try and ban him from the sport, this can be overruled because it is not actually a conduct behaviour ruling but rather a contractual one which has mitigating factors involved so he should be able to return regardless of the decision.

Watertight contacts are always broken for the freedom for actors, dancers,comedians and sportmans and other entertainers are always a problem if there is not a get-out clause in the contact because the courts could see it as inequitable contract and therefore void.

Just a few things to either wet your appetite or make it more complex and confusing for you all.


Edited by AllWhitebelievr - Yesterday at 3:28pm

[MrTTTT]

Originally Posted by Saladin

So you'd stay in your job if another company offered to triple your salary to do the same basic job but with less responsibility?

I don't know if it's 'the same' because of the nature of team sports.
Let's draw a different analogy: he's in a war and he runs away leaving his comrades for dead.

If I was contracted for a project I'd certainly finish that off first, and would certainly tell my business/workmates that I'm gonna gap it.

SBW didn't even finish out the season, didn't even tell his team mates he was leaving, just gapped out leaving them in the lurch. If the Bulldogs were 2nd on the table and not 2nd to last no way would he have done that. He deserted them.

Disgraceful

[Haydos]

He made comments all throughout the year that he felt manipulated into signing the contract.

He made comments all throughout the year that he was no longer happy with the Bulldogs and wanted a release.

And he made comments saying he felt it futile to try and negotiate with the club as everytime he tried, they gave him "Tough shit, you're locked in for five years"

[Heresy]

Phil Gould speaks his mind with Gallop:

http://media.smh.com.au/?rid=40016

[a-tech]

lol - gussy gould shooting from the hip.

[pig]

Good to hear someone actually wanting to talk about the issues which have played a part in Sonny Bill bolting. I think the Bulldogs have shot themselves in the foot to a certain extent with how they have dealt with him & also with releasing Willie Mason last year.
I have my doubts about that manager tho - he just sounds like a dodgy prick.
Also whoever let him get signed up to a 5 year contract without a get out clause is a bloody muppet.

[p-b]

As herp hinted at, the only way Sonny Bill will ever play for the All Blacks is if the NZRFU allow overseas based players to play for New Zealand.

I can't ever see him playing Super 14

[Ab]

Originally Posted by p-b

the only way Sonny Bill will ever play for the All Blacks is if the NZRFU allow overseas based players to play for New Zealand.

As they have for Dan Carter, for example?

[Jin]

I would quietly lol if he wasnt actually good at union.

[p-b]

Originally Posted by Ab

As they have for Dan Carter, for example?

Yes, but that is just Dan Carter.

[ZoSo]

1 year with another year option:
http://www.nrl.com.au/News/Latest/ta....aspx?id=52280

Bit of a shame, league wise. But here's hoping he carves up, get's in the Blacks and wins us the RWC back

[a-tech]

Tana says 'Class is permanent'.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/Sports/...ult.aspx#video

[Ab]

LET PREPARATIONS FOR THE RAPING COMMENCE

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4645430a1823.html

[a-tech]

what did people think of the footy show interview with SBW?

Seemed pretty angry thats for sure, and def a lot of blame getting slung about.

[untouchable]

Cant wait to see SBW in an All Black jersey.