By Spiro Zavos
August 17th 2008 @ 12:43am
Sonny Bill Williams shoulder-charges the Bulldogs
The Australian headlined its story about the settlement between the Bulldogs and Sonny Bill Williams this way: ‘Toulon to compensate Bulldogs on Sonny Bill Williams defection.’
The clear implication in the headline is that the Bulldogs have won their grapple tackle with their defecting star player. You’d expect a News Ltd to take this line.
Another News Ltd newspaper, The Daily Telegraph - a rugby league paper compared with the AFL obsession of The Australian - had the information that the Labor Party and Packer fixer, Graham Richardson, had brokered a $750,000 pay out by Williams to end his contract with the Bulldogs. The headline reflected its ‘exclusive’ news story: ‘Graham Richardson ends Sonny Bill Williams tug-o-war.’
The Sydney Morning Herald also had the exclusive about Graham Richardson. It’s headline suggested a certain sympathy it has maintained during the affair for what Sonny Bill Williams was trying to do: ‘Sonny Bill free for $750k’
The intervention of Graham Richardson is interesting. The Labor Party has had a connection with Rugby League since the days of The Split. I remember being at Kogorah Oval for the opening the then new stand and there were all the Labor heavies, including Richardson, on the field for the ceremony putting the stand into play. The Sydney Football Stadium was a $60 million gift to RL. And until the hotels lobby trumped the Leagues Clubs lobby, the Labor Party was totally influential in running the big clubs.
Richardson’s role in this may have had something to do with the Labor-RL links, and - more certainly in my view - with his links with the Packers and Channel 9. The point here is that the Channel 9 and Fox Sports (which Jamie Packer has a 25 per cent holding in) have a certain interest in Rugby League retaining the salary cap.
There are two reasons for this: the salary cap, in theory, evens out the competition thereby keeping more teams in play, although in practice this does not seem to be the case. Second, the cap puts a restraint on the cost of running the NRL and, therefore, the ultimate cost of the television rights for Channel 9 and Fox Sports.
The Bulldogs have taken a bad hit with the foreshadowed settlement. The clubs get $750,000 but has to fork out $300,000 in lawyers’ fees. There is apparently a dispute with the NRL as to which organisation should pay these legal costs.
From the beginning of this affair I have argued that the Sonny Bill Williams operation was a sting. It was carefully calculated with Williams getting a Samoan passport about six months ago. The legal basis for Williams’ case was never really expressed, although the player suggested that restraint of trade involved with the salary cap was going to be a dominant argument.
The role of the Toulon club president Mourad Boudjellai, a multi-millionaire from a comic book empire, was under-estimated by the Bulldogs and the NRL, too. Williams and Boudjellai always acted in a way that suggested that were very well briefed on the legal implications of every action in the convoluted defection saga.
For instance, Boudjellai warned the Bulldogs, before the settlement agreement, that the Bulldogs compliance of the salary cap was an issue he was prepared to push and that the Bulldogs might be sued in French law for the ‘moral harassment’ of Williams in the way they tried to serve their court documents.
The lawyer assisting Graham Richardson was Chris O’Brien, the ARL’s lawyer during its fight with Super League, whose lawyer was David Gallop.
In my opinion, Gallop’s position as CEO of the NRL is now untenable. His main argument against Sonny Bill Williams was the ’sanctity’ of the contract ‘a binding commitment on the part both of the player and the club’ in the rugby league game. But as Peter FitzSimons pointed out on Saturday: ‘This is not quite the view you took, David, when you were the Super League lawyer.’
While Gallop remains the CEO, all of the NRL players who want to break their contracts (Greg Inglis?) will be able to point to Gallop’s Super League understanding of what the sanctity of contract means. In the light of this, attempts to force rugby league players to honour their contracts may be deemed ‘moral harassment.’
The Bulldogs and David Gallop went into the battle with Sonny Bill Williams determined and confident that they were going to teach him and anyone else wanting to emulate his defection a lesson they’d never forget.
It’s obvious now, though, that Williams has shoulder-charged them. He’s been given a yellow card. But the Bulldogs and David Gallop have been permanently injured.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(28)
There are certain sentences a rugby writer believes he will never write and one them was (notice the past tense): 'Al Baxter monsters Andrew Sheridan...'
Jerry said | August 17th 2008 @ 6:44am | Report comment
For all the emotive talk from both sides, when it comes down to it it was just a matter of how much the contract would be bought out for. I’m sure everyone involved expected a similar outcome from an early stage - or at least as soon as the legal teams had informed them of likely outcomes.
Essentially what we have here is a transfer fee paid to the Bulldogs - I wonder if other players from down under in both league and union who’ve got a few years on their contracts will be looking at this and enquiring about the possibility of jumping to France before they’re off contract. I thought the Jerry Collins/Toulon situation was a perfect candidate for introducing transfer fees into union, though a friend of mine who made some enquiries hinted there were other factors that made that unlikely.
Yikes said | August 17th 2008 @ 9:11am | Report comment
I just get the feeling that Nasser’s advice to SBW was something like “do whatever you want, and we’ll sort the financial side out later”. That seems to be the way these things work in sport.
mudskipper said | August 17th 2008 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Will the Bulldogs honour their extensive ANZ Stadium contract? And not take the 15 million relocation offer by the NRL to the centeral coast. Also it’s interesting to note that a club like the Bulldogs would pull out of the shadows such a colourful individual like Graham Richardson…
Spiro Zavos said | August 17th 2008 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
A couple of interesting things emerged from the ‘Bec & and Buzz: Australia’s Best Sports Gossip’ column (Rebecca Wilson and Phil Rothfield) in the News Ltd’s ‘Sunday Telegtraph. Khoder Nasser, Sonny Bill Williams’ new manager, is accused of running a ‘Ministry for Propaganda,. And the Australian swimming coach, Alan.Thompson, a friend of Steve Folkes, is quoted as saying: ‘All I’ll say is that too many people get out of contract these days.’
I can’t recall Thompson being a defender of the ’sanctity of contract’ when the Bulldogs left the ARL to join the Super League.
And come to think of it, it’s difficult to recall all the News Ltd RL writers being accused of being a propaganda merchants for their support of Super League.
Also, ‘Bec and Buzz’ revealed the interesting information that Khoder Nasser’s lawyer is Mark O’Brien.
The Link said | August 17th 2008 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
Spiro, looks like Sonny WAS finally well briefed and decided to settle. I’ve heard a few over the last few weeks, but a charge of ‘moral harrasment’? Please….
This was always going to be about damages / transfer fees, Greenberg has admitted so himself. This was the only way that they could go about it and it has worked.
So if the Salary cap is some Packer / Ch.9 inspired conspiracy, why is it in place in the AFL / other sporting competitions around the world Spiro?
Worlds Biggest said | August 17th 2008 @ 9:52pm | Report comment
The NRL are kidding themselves if they see this compensation payout as a win for the self proclaimed ” Greatest game of all “. It merely highlights the fact that Greg Inglis or any other high profile League player can jump ship at any time as long as there is a sugar daddy or another party willing to pony up the compo payment. How much $ did SBW pay out of his own pocket towards the 750 k payout figure??. The NRL would be wise to establish a transfer fee like they have in Soccer. Looks like Money Bill wont need to sell his McMansion in Caringbah now.
mudskipper said | August 17th 2008 @ 9:53pm | Report comment
The Link… I think Spiro is referring to the NRL salary cap as a business convenience to Packer/Ch.9… Creating cheaper broadcasting product.
Furthermore I would anticipate that Ch. 9 renegotiated its NRL broadcasting deal during the Super media wars at a reduced rate… while the League was under pressure… which is somewhat amusing considering David Gallop was once a Super League lawyer now fronts the NRL…and has to contain the business…or is this why Gallop fronts the NRL because he is in Packer/Ch.9 pocket?
Bulldogs chief executive Todd Greenberg openly talking to the media about terms which have not been agreed to yet… is likely only to create more problems for the NRL… “ Loose lips sink ships”, and the Bulldogs have more media doorstops and secrets than Paris Hilton…
In the end real facts will be hidden…Channel 9 and the NRL will likely to make up part of the fee paid to the Bulldogs and have SWB and all other parties sign a None Disclosure Agreement to keep silent… Just to keep NRL business and the salary cap contract issue out of courts…it’s the Packer/Ch.9 way… Further support to this theory is, why else would anyone or corporate group/s employ a shadowy envoy such as Graham Richardson to get involved…and not allow the principal parties to negotiate the deal?
I’m sure we wont see The Fatty Footy Show discussion on this point. The Semi finals are near and peak broadcast dollars are on the table for 2008, nobody wants the withdrawal of any possible media buyers…now do they…
westy said | August 17th 2008 @ 11:09pm | Report comment
I am personally a little over it. I have no problem with rugby buying league talent.Whilst we were amateur they did the same to us . I am a little uncomfortable with our holier than though attitude. When i was playing rugby it was no secret that some of my colleagues did the approaching to league not the other way round.We have the high ground so let us not lose it by bullshitting.SBW could have handled this better than by wALKING OUT ON HIS TEAMMATES professional club or notwithout notice or negotiation.. He left them with some dishonour rugby or league.Kearney/ Ryan/Brass/ Mossop/ Thornett/ AllenPrice/O’connor/Fairfax/Sailor/Tuquiri/Gasnier/Barnes/Cooper/Tahu never did this . Thet played out their contracts. SBW could have negotiated a settlement in a much more direct manner and plyed out this year with only 3 games left. . He left in a petulent and immature manner. I hope he achieves his dreams
Secondly contrary to the elitism of rugby some of our blokes were working class, had served in WW2 and /or needed to secure their futures and were at best going to a semi professional code until say the O’Connor era.
I have studied French rugby and basically Australian league stands up pretty well. French rugby have always rorted or cheated.on their so called amateur system. They basically paid French league players from 60’s and again in 70’s to play rugby.
The revenge motivator has less resonance in this sphere. The level of wanton violence in French club rugby is basically a throwback to the early 70’s in league.
SBW wanted to terminate his contract. A financial settlement is how you do it if you do not have the brains to insert a get out clause. This is what has happened. and what was always going to happen.I for one would be much happier if SBW had negotiated a release and gone to a NZ super 14 team to play for the ABs or Samoa.That he is playing for a national club competition that has less than a flattering history and whose standard is still inconsistent says some things about SBW and his conduct. French rugby clubs are smart aggressive and always under the table.Like Peter Fitzsimons I am Francophile in nature and love the tribal following of french club rugby but Toulon’s 13700 stadium does not pay for this .
I am glad that Australian rugby and league players can earn more.
Lastly I do not know who gives you or Peter their legal advice . Superleague legal war was not about advising people to break contracta it was about ss.45 and 46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (CTH) and the alleged anti competitive conduct and arrangements of ARL. Gallop never advised any one to breach their contract.If the arrangements were illegal the clubs (most players were contracted to the clubs except for free agents)were free to play in a rival competition. These assertions are corny and in fact lazy . Read the case!
The Answer said | August 18th 2008 @ 4:00am | Report comment
First I thought this was a battle between the codes, now it is a battle between news organisations! Wake me when it is over.
The fact is people are so tainted by they connection to either league or union in the case it is painful to see them defending their side to the death. The Union side now love SBW, so Pete Fitz and Spiro see him as eloquent, cultured and a shrewd business operator.
The League side see Sonny as a deserter and a low-life manipulated by Nasser and Mundine.
It is interesting though the many bush lawyers who claimed that the French wouldn’t care in the slightest about the NRL or any NSW legal decision yet clearly they have been swayed by the courts and sought to end the affair through compensation. 750k is hardly not giving a toss about the NRL. I hope those guys aren’t working as lawyers and if they are they aren’t charging a lot.
In fact, Sonny had talked about going to jail for his beliefs, now he is reaching for his chequebook. Hollow rhetoric in true Mundine style.
I agree with Westy, the parrallels draw to Super League are very lazy and clearly used just to stir the pot. Of course, when Murdoch came calling to Union they just rolled over and signed up.
Monty said | August 18th 2008 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Has SBW established a precedent where a league or union player could walk out on his code into the other mid-contract, and pay a transfer fee? Greg Inglis has been mentioned a few times about this with no hard evidence. However, Im thinking where there is smoke there is fire.
Or, what makes SBW’s case different that will not allow it to become precedent?
Jerry said | August 18th 2008 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Monty - there’s no precedent cause there’s been no judgment of a court. A precedent is established when a court makes a ruling or comment on a point of law, not when a legal dispute is resolved privately. What has happened is that a contractual dispute has been resolved by way of a payout - neither side actually got to the point of asserting legal arguments (I am willing to be corrected on this, but I would imagine the Bulldogs would have only had to establish a prima facie case and possibility of harm to get their injunction, especially as SBW was not represented in court). The reason many cases are settled out of court is that often one party wishes to avoid any legal precedent being set - while settling may be expensive in the short term, it means that no binding precedent has been established that subsequent parties can rely on, essentially opening the floodgates. In practice, settling out of court can create a precedent of sorts, but it is more a case of people reading market forces than a binding legal precedent.
I suppose their could be said to be some precedent in terms of employment relations in that the Bulldogs accepted the payout, but each player contract is likely to be quite different so any new matter would depend on the facts. Also (again, I am willing to be corrected) but the NRL clubs are seperate legal identities so Inglis would not be able to rely on the actions or practices of the Bulldogs if he were to try and assert any rights against the Storm.
JohnB said | August 18th 2008 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Jerry is completely right that it’s no legal precedent - it may be a commercial one though.
One of the interesting things coming out of this is that there isn’t actually any legal decision and thus no answer to the questions of principle that seemed so important to both sides previously. Plenty of scope for speculation as to which of the 2 sides wanted a legal decision the least.
Recidivist said | August 18th 2008 @ 9:41am | Report comment
From a Bush lawyer, SBW got dudded in these “negotiations”. As Richardson said, he thought they would get away with $250k or so. The Bulldogs were demanding way too much for the alleged “damage” but were prepared to go to court. As a lawyer I would have like to have seen SBW go to court. I have seen restraint of trade cases get kicked out before (this is a big ‘trick’ of one of the two leading supermarkets). The breach of contract area of the law is a different argument which is really down to money alone.
For all the arguments about money etc I reckon SBW just wanted out. Now he is free and can play footy and enjoy life. Good luck to him, at least he has the luxury to be able to drop such a large amount of money. I reckon his legal expenses would have been much less if he had taken them on but he would have had it weighing over home for too long.
I think Spiro is spot on with the discussion about David Gallop. One way or another he looks a bit foolish. he would haev looked more foolish if all his talk had led to the fall of the salary cap!
mudskipper said | August 18th 2008 @ 11:36am | Report comment
No legal precedent…Packer/Ch.9 group don’t do their business in the courtroom or in the public domain…
It was not that long ago that the Bulldogs set a new precedent and breached the NRL salary cap… But have the Bulldogs breached the salary cap again in the last couple of years? Furthermore has SBW used this knowledge to get out with a transfer fee…looks to me like Sonny Bill Williams has got what he wanted and so has Toulon… The NRL got out of going to court and kept have protected the product for Ch.9 and the Bulldogs lost their star player and received some cash but lost their integrity once again…
There is a lot more to this story…to the Bulldogs and defending their player back room contracts…
SMH 27/08/02 Bulldogs breach salary cap…
“ Bulldogs players, already stripped of their place in the finals, are now being asked to indirectly absorb the cost of the $500,000 fine imposed on the club”… According to internal documents obtained from Canterbury Leagues Club, which recorded a turnover of $60 million last financial year, the Bulldogs breached the salary cap by $750,000 in 2001, had budgeted to exceed it by $889,456 this season and were planning to overspend by a further $459,500 next season.
Announcing the penalty last Friday, NRL chief executive David Gallop said: “The only possible outcome of these breaches was to accumulate and retain a playing squad outside the boundaries of the rules agreed to by all clubs.” In other words, the Bulldogs have deliberately set out to gain an advantage over their rivals, whose inferior depth is tested to the limit every time they lose players to injury or suspension.
Supporting that view is the fact that the Bulldogs have won the Jersey Flegg (under 21s) competition for the past three seasons in succession and taken out three of the past five first division titles
Herald Sun 19/06/08 Canterbury Bulldogs score landmark salary cap win.
SIX seasons after being stripped of 37 competition points for overspending, the Bulldogs yesterday scored a sweet salary cap victory that could change the way clubs are audited.
NRL boss David Gallop agreed to overturn a $50,000 fine that was leveled against the Bulldogs in April for refusing to disclose the entire personal file belonging to former star Willie Mason.
On advice from their barrister Arthur Moses, the Bulldogs appealed against the penalty on the basis that privacy laws prevented the club from revealing certain parts of Mason’s file to a third party such as the NRL….”
The Club never changes the shadows just grow longer…and deeper…
OldManEmu said | August 18th 2008 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
The report that Mark O’Brien is the Lawyer advising Khoder Nasser is fascinating - he was the public face of the ARL legal team during the Super League war, and yet is in no uncertain terms a “Rugby Union” man.
old goalie said | August 18th 2008 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
Is this the first Transfer fee paid to an Aus. Rugby League player? First overt transfer fee anyway. If so, Rugby League is dead for 2 reasons.
1. Contracts will mean even less than they do now, and they mean diddly due to Super League.
2. Rich clubs can simply pay off poor clubs.
Regardless of your code allegiance or what you think is right or wrong, a game played by Qld and NSW, a couple of counties in Northern England and half seriously in a few small French towns cannot comepte in this day and age with games that are truly golbal, (Rugby Union, Football) or games that are truly national (Australian Rules). From the top to the grass roots, the game is in dire shape. A well placed source tells me it will all blow up at this years Rugby League “World” Cup.
Westy said | August 18th 2008 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
Old Goalie……….this is beyond code allegiance……….if your prediction is correct it is not as good news as many in rugby make out………..rugby is not in a position to take the slack. Secondly I have serious doubts about league quickly disappearing with the junior base it currently enjoys…………….a well placed source that is the published annual reports of ARU and NSWRU tell us some good news but also disclose rugby is a long way of the number of playing juniors league possesses.
It worries me when we forget this simple fact. Lose that critical mass to another code and it is rugby that will have the regrets in this country.
Westy said | August 18th 2008 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Old Man Emu……….remember the ARL lost the case…..the case was all about the relevant market concept……….many believe it should have been won not just in round one and that the evidence presented in Court and submissions on appeal were sloppy……….there was a real argument that the market was not professional rugby league as News argued nor sport in general as ARL pursued but professional contact sports shown on TV including rugby/AFL/even basketball at the time/football. The ARL’s legal team did not pursue this accurate and telling argument but that league was part of sport in general including chess! The ARL’s legal team got out legalled by NewsLTd ’s legal team including Mr Gallop
Steffy said | August 18th 2008 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
“Is this the first Transfer fee paid to an Aus. Rugby League player? First overt transfer fee anyway. If so, Rugby League is dead for 2 reasons.”
Transfer fees have been paid in british rugby for years - initially just between rugby clubs and then since union went openly pro between rugby and union clubs.
Sluggy said | August 18th 2008 @ 11:07pm | Report comment
Like Jerry said:
“The reason many cases are settled out of court is that often one party wishes to avoid any legal precedent being set”
There is no way the NRL (and the Bulldogs) wanted the issue of the legality of the salary cap exposed to scrutiny; they were always going to take the right money and spin it as a victory. SBW on the other hand would want to put things to bed and I expect he and his new club are also spinning it as a victory - with the doggies ‘coming to their senses’ and accepting a reasonable buy/out transfer fee instead of intransigently denying SBW a transfer.
Is there a commercial precedent here? I doubt it - it was always open to club A to release player X to go to club B, whether club A are given a financial incentive by club B is a matter that has to be looked at on a case by case basis by those invloved. There doesn’t need to be any formal mechanism for this, market forces will sort it out and best distinguish between the wheat and the chaff.
Craig said | August 19th 2008 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
I don’t buy this legal argument about restraint of trade in the Money Bill Williams saga and I am not convinced that it would have stood up in court as some people in legal circles have claimed. There seems to be this underlying assumption that had there been no salary cap then the Bulldogs would have automatically been in a position to offer millions of dollars a season to this man. As it stands, no NRL club would be in the position to match offers from French rugby so whether or not a salary cap exists is really irrelevant. The Bulldogs made an offer which amounted to about $500K per season and the offer was accepted. Money Bill also insisted on a 5 year contract, against the advice of his then manager who was recommending 3 years. If this man wanted to play French rugby and earn bigger bucks then why sign the contract? Because he was injury prone and looking for a long term contract to protect himself - contracts protect both parties! In this case it didn’t protect the Bulldogs because the signature of the man they signed wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. The bloke has abolutely no integrity whatsover and I say good riddance.
mudskipper said | August 19th 2008 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Hypothetically can a third party deal be made with the NRL? The NRL would be the third party stakeholder and therefore flanking their own salary cap system. Gasnier was reported to have a third part deal with Channel 9, who is a key NRL stakeholder…Did the NRL instigate the Gasnier/Channel 9 third party deal? Why are third party stakeholders’ company names not made public?
AAP - July 15, 2008
“ The third-party payments owed to Gasnier, reportedly to do with his collapsed deal with Channel Nine, allowed him to activate an exit clause two years into his five-year deal with the Dragons…”
So if reports are true the key broadcaster of the NRL failed to honour Mark Gasnier’s contract…unlike Firepower they are not insolvent…So why? Is the player the only party held to honour their contract if the key broadcaster can walk away? Gasnier’s contract prudently had a loophole, which released him form the Club, and NRL…
And you would think that Sonny Bill Williams been thinking fro sometime, if Gaz got a little extra from the broadcaster why shouldn’t he…
There are of pages of this information on the web…
Jerry said | August 19th 2008 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
“Why are third party stakeholders’ company names not made public?”
Cause they’re private contractual arrangements between the player and the third party and unless both parties consent, no-one (ie not the NRL) has any right to make any part of the contract public.
mudskipper said | August 19th 2008 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
In addition to my above comment… The NRL and Channel 9 are a long-standing partnership. And have built he Rugby League brand together over many years…The fact that the NRL administered a third party deal with Channel 9 so Gasnier could be paid more and remain with the NRL undermines the underlying concept of the salary cap “to make all NRL teams equally competitive”.
And people wonder why Sonny Bill Williams was so disillusioned with the NRL…
mudskipper said | August 19th 2008 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
Jerry…I understand that but what is their advantage in not being named? Is the questoin Jerry…
Gatesy said | August 19th 2008 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
The interesting aspect of this is the “no-return clause”. Sonny has signed up to it, which, in theory, takes away some of his bargaining power, in the event that he is unsuccessful at Rugby and wants to go back to the NRL. But is it arguable that it acts as a restraint of trade? I guess you would need to see how it was worked into the settlement agreement to understand that, but it is an interesting point..and it makes you wonder how a settlement between an individual and a club, can bind the player as against the NRL, generally?
Now, people will be looking to work that into future contracts, and smart managers will be finding ways around it. Interesting times we live in, aren’t they? You really wonder who will be the winners and the losers out of it all.
Jerry said | August 19th 2008 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
Gatesy - from what I’ve heard the settlement only prevents him from signing with another NRL club, so he could sign with a Super League club in the UK if he wished. That probably solves any restraint of trade issue as well. There’s no law that says you can’t put a restraint of trade into a contract - it happens constantly with many employment contracts or the sale of a business (eg - if I buy a successful business from someone, the agreement will state that they can’t set up a new business doing the same thing in the building accross the road). The test the courts apply when such clauses are challenged is that of reasonableness - basically whether there is a legitmate reason or interest behind the clause. In the case of another NRL club the reason is obvious as they’re direct competitors of the Bulldogs. The fact that there’s a perfectly feasible alternative in Super League also adds to the reasonableness of the “no compete” clause.
Greg Russell said | September 3rd 2008 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Spiro,
Some interesting and provocative views.
My take on this is that Bulldogs have come out of it quite well: the NRL will surely pay most of the legal fees, meaning that the Bulldogs take home not too much less than $750k, which is close to 40% of what they would have had to pay SBW over the next 5 years. Additionally, a club that normally only gets public scorn will for once find themselves getting a lot of public sympathy.
As regards this being a calculated move by Boudjellal, I have a wildly speculative theory: that he is looking to launch business interests (i.e., his comic-book empire) in Australia. If so then out of this he has got publicity worth millions and millions more than what he has had to pay in total for SBW.