One thing that annoys me about the way the NRL works is players signing contracts 18 months in advance.
The current anti-tampering guidelines state that the NRL will not register a player’s contract with a new club until after Round 13 in the final year of that player’s existing contract with his current club.
The only exception to this is where the existing club agrees that the new contract should be registered.
There is no rule to prevent clubs talking to players at any time. There is an acceptance that nobody likes to see players negotiating with a new team but there is also the reality that players in the game do change clubs and that those discussions can take place over an extended period.
Rather than introduce discussion deadlines that have in the past been shown to be ineffective, the NRL reserves the right not to register the contract. That ensures that the player’s existing club has a fair chance of retaining its player if desired.
Given the exodus of players through the last few weeks, I wondered about the validity of the players’ claim regarding the need to finalise future contracts so early in the preceding season.
As much club supporters hate to hear players are moving on from their club, it energises clubs who have low expectations for the current season that next year may be better.
This year we’ve seen multiple cases of players who signed contracts for 2017 and then made a case to leave the current club and commence the new contract a year early.
Shawn Lane, Tevita Pangai, Roy Morgan, Konrad Hurrell, Nathan Peats, Junior Paulo, Peter Mata’utia, Chris Grevsmuhl, Brett Greinke, Chris Smith, Lamar Liolevave, Lachlan Lewis, Matthew Wright, Elijah Taylor, Raymond Faitala-Mariner.
All the players above have managed to sort out the logistics of moving clubs, some across Sydney, some interstate and some internationally, so there is no reason why the NRL shouldn’t and can’t change the rules that frustrate the fans so much.
I’d like to see the rules changed so:
1. All contracts for the next year will not be registered until after Round 26.
2. More transparency regarding the value of the contracts.
3. If a player is injured for the season, the remainder of the player’s contract value is available for a replacement to be signed for the remainder of the year. Either as an upgrade from their second-tier contracts or from other players not in a top 25 or from the other NRL teams.
I understand the RLPA are trying to get the best they can out of the collective bargaining agreement with the NRL because that’s their job as the players’ representative. However, there seems to be little logic or reasoning for changes to the contracting rules given how easily players seem to be able to sort out a new location in the middle of the year.
For the supporters’ sake, I hope there’s a rethink around contracts soon.
Chop
Roar Guru
Thanks for reading Don Yeah poor timing from me getting caught up in the hype that is Origin. I don't know how you do an NRL draft with players being signed up for scholarships as school kids which is different to the AFL and NFL which have supporting under age competitions which provide the kids who nominate for the draft.
Don
Roar Rookie
Crowded day for posting an article that deserves a wider audience Chop. Personally I really like the idea of player trades mid season but I hate seeing players sign contracts 18 months out to play elsewhere. I love it when clubs can negotiate and facilitate the immediate movement of a player. But I hate a signing 18 months out where the player doesn't move until due. It's hard to do the player movement really well without a draft and free agency. EG a guy like Junior Paulo would have been put into a draft because he wouldn't qualify for free agency and allowed to move to his choice of club. Canberra would have had to negotiate future draft picks or player trades with other lower clubs to get the selection that secured Paulo. A guy like Cronk would be free agent and allowed to move outside the draft.