What's the value of loyalty, John Bateman?

I agree with all the comments before me, i.e. these people play a risky sport, have a limited career, etc. But I should also just add, $400,000 today is obviously very good salary from a time value money perspective. To put it into perspective, median age of a PM is around 52. Say they start working at 18. That is after 34 years they reach a salary in the 400,000+ range as PM (this is just a hypothetical example). Compare than to a 25 year old Rugby League player, earning $400,000 27 years younger. If you use time value of money on $400,000 forward 27 years, at a lower interest rate (say 2%) that translates to $682,000 instead. The whole point I'm trying to make (perhaps terrible) is that big money earnt at the start of your career, due to the time value of money, is obviously far more valuable than the same salary earnt at the end of your career. This is the basics of finance. Money has a time value. And of course if you invest that money (which most players do, even if it's something simple like buying property and earning rent etc) you get massive additional wealth being created from this high income and time value than the average job / person simply doesn't have.

Also to add, some here are lamenting the timing of Bateman’s public comments. It’s perfect timing. Right before a big GF, the first in god knows how long. Sure as anything it’s designed to get a rich Canberra stalwart to come to the party with a TPD. He will be at Canberra next year, probably on a little bit more from the Canberra cap but a lot more from a third party. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Ricky was the one that told him to do it.

“Sound familiar? It certainly does to me. It’s a football player justifying why they’re looking to renege on a deal or perhaps just abandon one club in the pursuit of more money at another.” Yep sounds very familiar. Except remove “football player” and replace it with “Coach”. Except the coach did that the same year he convinced the board to sack 12 contracted players whilst he still had 2 years left on his contract. Where was that team only a couple of years later? That’s right in salary cap trouble.

The bloody agents , go see who they are.

Check out Australian player managers and then analyze a contract, rather granny as my manager.

About time we had enforceable 1 to 2-year contracts, like legal even lol.

Contracts? what a joke no such thing in the NRL, just for us with bank managers.

Definitely not classy. But gee if we banned every low class person in league we'd have an issue. Heck we wouldn't have the reporters who broke this story

Yeah I thought that was the case.

To describe it as an ambit claim though you've got to have some idea as to what he's entitled to and what he's asked for. Agree there's a media game happening here but can you point me to the obviously outrageous demands? At this point all we've got is third hand innuendo. Anyone know a proposed term?

Not really, the income gets averaged out for tax purposes. For say Cameron Smith it is not going to make much difference because his earnings would all be highest marginal rate. It is more for people like golfers and tennis players who exist on winnings which can vary wildly.

How can I see that? 30 years watching unions and others throw out demands in the media and then settle for less.

"More fool Bateman for signing 3 years locked in, no linking to performance. Could’ve put a clause in his contract- not the Raiders fault his player agent at the time didn’t play a little hard ball." Depends on if the gauge to non existent details of his contract marry up with your very precise read of how it was worded and negotiated. Whilst a "john Hancock " shouldn't be taken lightly it is foolish for either side to think a contract will provide absolute certainty. Leverage always exists outside of the contracted terms.

How can you see that Elvis? We've got zero information. Nada. Zip.

I feel like many of these events are a result of limited details. At this point what do we know? Um he has a new agent, he's looking at his options, he's talking to Canberra. I just looked at the fox sports site to see if there was a written account of the panel session to confirm the details. There isn't the slightest mention, just Kent's diatribe intro in print and then none of the clarification. Maybe it's buried deeper on the site? Maybe it was destroyed for risking an informed fan base?

It was on NRL 360. Three different "presenters" (not ikin) said they understood it to be the case but timing was poor. One I didn't particularly recognize but he apparently had car pooled with rothfield when he gave Bateman a heads up about the story. The unknown (to me) presenter said he'd spoken with bateman's agent about the clause - his take was his current agent thought it was an odd clause given how loose it was.

The ATO has concessions for professional athletes because of their limited time earning big bucks. They are taxed completely different to the rest of us.

Just remember that the ATO has concessions for professional athletes that lowers the usual tax obligations we mere mortals are supposed to adhere to because of their limited time earning the big bucks. More fool Bateman for signing 3 years locked in, no linking to performance. Could've put a clause in his contract- not the Raiders fault his player agent at the time didn't play a little hard ball. A John Hancock is not to be taken lightly and nor should it be.

If so, then him renegotiating is perfectly fine, but I haven’t seen that reported anywhere. You are literally the first person that has suggested (to me) that is the case.

I was under the impression from the comments made directly by Bateman that he was staying in Canberra and that the story was a beat up so is this old news or was he lying?