Every year we hear in rugby league (and maybe in other places, but I’m not listening) that contracts don’t work any more.
We hear that they’re not worth anything, and are meaningless.
This year, we heard it more than usual.
I think they do work and work well – and that it’s the decisions of the people charged with administering them that should be the subject of sharper focus.
Let’s examine three of this year’s more prominent examples: Ricky Stuart, Anthony Milford and Ben Barba.
When Ricky Stuart left Parramatta to join Canberra he “walked out” on a three-year deal by exercising his 30-day termination clause, a clause that he could, apparently, exercise at any time of his choosing.
This isn’t an example of a contract failing, it’s an example of a contract working.
Ricky Stuart didn’t sign a deal to coach Parramatta for three years, he signed a deal to coach Parramatta until he felt like giving Parramatta 30 days notice of his decision to leave.
This was a clause agreed to between two parties in a commercial negotiation, that the Parramatta board must have understood could one day be exercised.
The real story here is not that Stuart walked away, but that Parramatta, in seeking a new coach and some much needed stability, gave him the power to walk away.
Ricky Stuart was let go by the Sydney Roosters and quit as coach of the Cronulla Sharks.
His club record since the retirement of Brad Fittler is, on a win/loss basis, poor.
Despite much talk about culture, his return as coach of the NSW Origin team resulted in two wins from six, and two series losses.
In offering Stuart a deal worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, Parramatta may well have been in a position to demand from Stuart a greater contractual commitment than he gave.
Would he have signed without the 30-day clause?
I have no idea, but if he’s smart enough to get it, he’s quite entitled to exercise it, and the questions about the inclusion of that clause should be asked of the Parramatta board not of Stuart.
I understand that this legal analysis ignores Stuart’s lectures to Parramatta fans about the need to stay the course through difficult times, but that’s a topic for a another day.
The Anthony Milford situation is very similar.
If a club grants a player the right to terminate a deal to be with their family (or the right to have the club “look favourably” on such a request – whatever that means) they can hardly criticise the player for taking advantage of the rights granted to them.
Maybe the player really wants to leave to get more money, maybe they want to play in a different position, play under a different coach – who knows?
The point is not the decision making process that leads to the exercise but the right to exercise that the club granted.
If the club doesn’t want the player to be able to leave in these circumstances, it should not arm the player (or his agent) with the ability to do so.
Again, in my view, the criticisms of the player should instead be directed at the club.
The Ben Barba situation is, of course, somewhat different.
Barba has attracted enormous criticism on social media and elsewhere for his decision to seek, and be granted, an early release from his contract to move to Brisbane.
Ignoring Barba’s other problems and/or alleged problems, who wouldn’t do everything in their power to live in the same city as their children?
And what employer would ever feel that they could get the best from their employee (and rugby league players are employees) under extremely problematic family circumstances?
Contracts can always be changed when the parties agree to do so and in this case, Canterbury made a sensible, pragmatic decision to release an unhappy employee.
Yes, they lost a good player but if his ex-partner and children moved to a different city and Canterbury denied (as they could have) his request to join them, really, what kind of player would he have been then?
Some Canterbury fans were outraged.
They however were much less outraged, of course, than when Krisnan Inu, Mitch Brown and Sam Perrett negotiated early releases from contracts in 2012 to help the club to a grand final.
Contracts still work, just as they ever did.
However, sometimes it makes sense, for the benefit of an organisation as a whole, not to enforce the rights you have.
And, if in negotiating those contracts, if you give someone rights you wish you hadn’t given them, the only person to blame for that is yourself.
Brett Oaten
Roar Rookie
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. @Dr Yes, you are right. His last 6 weeks or so were great.
Dr Yes
Guest
You know... it makes sense :-P. In any area of life, a full agreement consists of: a) The "general deal" designed & negotiated for both sides : - "business as usual": roles, approach, payments - "changed conditions": special cases, resultant changes b) The legal contract to enforce all of that - responsibilities, rights, measures, salaries & bonuses - events, qualifications, changes to above, releases, financial exchanges Seems Parra deliberately took high risks with (a). Not even their management would accidently insert such crazy risks in at stage (b). So they literally got what they initially bargained for. The obvious backdrop here: before the year started, Parra & Ricky were aware that high risks were actually coming from club management - and negotiated accordingly. So the finances have ended up as accepted by both sides - he was presumably cheaper due to the get-out clause. Seems the Doggies got both parts fairly right with Barba. Their agreement *could* enforce Barba to play next year. But Barba wanted an out for his & family's benefit (understandable on compassionate and 'good employee' grounds). The Doggies negotiated to clear the remaining contract, and according to some reports will receive an undisclosed additional Broncos 'compensation' payment, because the contract still had value for them. If that's true and they can find a player with similar bang-for-buck & good fit to Doggies team structure (a fair 'if') - they end up a little ahead of where they would have been had Barba stayed. Seems the Raiders Milford contract is somewhere in-between - perhaps leaning rather more towards the Doggies case. He was vocal in the media about moving, so presumably, he would have already done so if he had the clear right. Interesting that the quotes of him wanting to move have halted and he's even been quoted as saying he wants to stay. Seems Raiders were right in resisting a little? So 3 ticks for contracts meeting intent and delivering on it. Plus 2 good "deals" and one questionable one. I half agree w Dr NRL comments re options. Agree: an option has value as "expected financial benefits". Disagree: you can't measure cap on "expected salaries" with variability on whether it turns out. Cap must be on on concrete salaries paid and benefits delivered. In finance, purchasing an option is personal risk/chance - the tax department becomes interested when the option's converted or sold, so concrete dollars exchange. Oh & BTW, Brett - you owe SKiDs a compliment or two! Go those excellent Chooks!
mushi
Guest
Also didn't the Doggies negotiate with the broncos a payment?
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
I just want to comment on this part of your article "Ignoring Barba’s other problems and/or alleged problems, who wouldn’t do everything in their power to live in the same city as their children?" She couldn't take the children to Queensland without him securing a release from his contract as no court would allow that. So the Bulldogs allowing him to leave so her welfare could be put at the top of the list was the most important part of the equation. Another of the reasons why she never said anything when the investigation into what happened occurred, because she got the outcome she wanted, Ben in Queensland so she too could move their.
Fez
Guest
He could have played for the Adelaide Rams, bulldogs4ever..
Fez
Guest
Yep, a spade IS in fact a spade. Nice work
Christopher Behan
Guest
Well written Brett. I want Ice Cream and I'm Fired Up.
Sean
Guest
Agreed
Brendan
Guest
I liked your comments on this topic, would be good to see what you think on others (18th man for Concussion, Expansion etc.) Well written/thought out. Should be more RL commentary like it.
BULLDOGS 4EVER
Guest
Well said Dr NRL, if players want to break a contact for any reasons like to be with my kids or my dad is sick ,good let them go but make them sit out the year without pay. As for B.Barba if benny wife went to South Australia would benny go there I DON'T THINK SO
Dr NRL
Guest
Well said Brett. The contracts were the problem in these cases, and there is no doubt about that. Looking at these contracts in a 'functional' sense, they weren't really contracts at all. All they provided, in reality, was a salary for the coach/player until they felt like leaving. A bit like a normal employee-employer relationship, if you like. This type of employment relationship will never catch on in the sense of being the norm rather than the exception, principally because clubs don't want to be laden down with geriatrics who can't play any more (or who they don't want) and who won't take their gold watch and ride off into the old age pension in peace. Players are contractors, and always will be. If a club wants to blur the lines, it should at least do so in its favour, rather than signing away all the options for free. Management and negotiation skills clearly need a refresher. As a further thought, options are worth something. In the real world, especially financial markets, if you want an option, you have to pay for it. In that sense, how does the NRL decide to leave it out of the salary cap? It's clearly worth something - a lot, if you're the game's greatest thinker, as it turns out! 1yr into a 3yr (non) contract says so. The real problem for 'normal' contracts comes when a player clearly doesn't want to play at a club any longer (Tallis, Hill ...) and shows it in their performance, or sits out a year. This sort of cynical ploy needs to be clamped down upon. Perhaps sitting out a 'penalty' year or similar would teach people to honor both their contract and their word.
Hez
Roar Rookie
"but if he’s smart enough to get it, he’s quite entitled to exercise it, and the questions about the inclusion of that clause should be asked of the Parramatta board not of Stuart". Concur
Peeeko
Guest
I really liked this article. Good example about inu, perrett etc
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
I think the issue has less to do with 'breaking contracts' (and the lowering of society's standards that this is supposed to represent) and more along the lines of fans being unable or unwilling to appreciate the wider flexibility that modern society offers people. In anycase, a well written post. Well done.