Reports: Bateman set to leave Raiders

I understand you. I hope you get me too. We’re just different that’s all. I do appreciate being on opposite sides of a delicate topic with someone who can play nice and not get personal. If I gave you that idea, it wasn’t intended. Even if you are totally wrong ????

I never said it was a perfect system. But that's the Raiders fault. They agreed to these conditions. I don't care about the transfer fee. If the Raiders needed to recoup benefit to make it worthwhile, they should have included it in the contract, not expect Bateman to forgo his rights under the contract. Did you think that maybe Bateman changed managers because he wanted the right person to negotiate the re-negotiation clause. If the Raiders didn't want to deal with what the contract allows around the Grand Final, they either should have not agreed to a contract with a re-negotiation clause, or re-negotiated prior to that point to ensure the matter was resolved. How was the clause abused? It says they can re-negotiate before the next year. If the Raiders wanted it before or after certain times they should have asked for that. You're right. I won't budge on the view that people are obligated to comply by their contracts. That's why you have them. If one party wanted other conditions, they should have asked for other conditions. Expecting somebody else to act how it suits you is not reasonable. Expecting them to act within the agreement they have made is. As for Bateman delaying surgery wanting to play. Well what is he obligated to do under his contract? I can potentially forgive a player to agreeing to conditions that he doesn't quite understand the implications of. He would only deal with contracts every couple of years. But a club is contracting players all year every year. If they can't protect themselves, well that's their failure.

Honestly I get what you're saying but I'm still astonished you see it as a perfect system and defend it so vehemently, unless you are a beneficiary. Don't you think the transfer fee on top of his contract matters? Aren't you in the least concerned that all this began the minute Bateman hooked up with Moses, a tainted figure himself? Don't you find the disruptive agitation a few days before the GF distasteful at least? Don't you suspect Bateman delayed shoulder surgery specifically for this outcome? And would you believe it if you heard Bateman doesn't want to return to the field for the Raiders this year? I'm sure none of these things were ever agreed to by the Raiders. I see that negotiation thing in his contract as an act of good faith by the club. It will be the last one ever by ANY club. It was completely abused by Bateman, or maybe his manager, it hardly matters. It isn't fair on any planet that one of their players playing well should "come back to haunt them" (your words, not mine). Why punish a club for that? What did they do wrong? Pub test: fail. I get that you won't budge and neither will I. You're correct. I'm right. I'm sure we're both comfy. Let's try and move on.

Of course. Anybody who doesn't agree with your opinion must be paid. How do we know you aren't on the Raiders payroll bud? How is it indefensible to act how you agreed? That's what the contract is. An agreement. If the Raiders didn't want Bateman to do this, why did they agree to a clause that allowed him to negotiate every year? The Raiders made a stupid agreement here. That's not Bateman's fault. They did it because they thought they'd get the benefit of it. That's too bad for them. Should have offered a little more at the start to lock him up properly. They didn't want to risk more money at the time. That's why. Now he's played really well it's come back to haunt them.

The fierce loyalty you and your mate Moose repeat mindlessly over and over stinks of lawyer double talk and you’d swear you are on Moses payroll too. If only Bateman had a fraction of the loyalty to the Raiders as you do for his duplicity. Get a moral compass and stop defending the indefensible. I bet you’d do it for money.

Who said anything about banning the sport? That's dummy spitting garbage I'd expect from tantrum throwing lesser souls with no loyalty except money. There's nothing level headed or honest about what happened here. It passes your measure but it fails the pub test by miles. Real fans appreciate loyalty and goodwill and courage. I hope you understand that one day.

It's only TWAS and I who are level headed enough to be honest to see it for what it is. Fans can dislike it as much as they like. But here's the kicker - you'll whinge, but you won't back it up with action and boycott the games will you? Why? Cause it's such a trivial issue that you have no right to get angry about. Bottom line: It's none of your business as a fan what a player does to get money. It's selfish to think otherwise. Does John Bateman tell you what team you should support? No Professional sportsman don't just play sport, it's business to them

No one has acted in bad faith here. People have absolutely over read the situation. Bateman followed his contact to the letter. He owes the Raiders nothing, and the Raiders owe him nothing. Both have acted properly and professionally.

Look it's only you and TWAS with this view and you could be the same bloke, in fact, you could be Isaac Moses. It's correct, but not right. It's completely devoid of goodwill , loyalty, good faith, and altruism and it ignores everything the Raiders did do prior to Bateman hooking up with the Sith Lord of the NRL. Simple fact: Fans don't like that. The sport needs it's fans. Do you guy/s really want to keep defending something that no-one likes? Or are you being paid to do it?

Sure, I get that. I think everyone does. But don't you think there's room for any good faith at all in this sport?

Everyone has a price. Everyone.

Are you being antagonistic because you don’t like the tactics and this is some weird show of support? Or are you a true believer in what you say? Club loyalty isn’t as dead as you think it is. Speak to any volunteer any Sunday. At NRL level, you and I will never know how deep club loyalty runs. But your idea it doesn’t exist is naive and frankly, destructive.

How is it morally wrong? People are implying he has gone back on an agreement. That’s not at all the case. He agreed to a deal that enabled him to get out every year. The question people should be asking is why did Canberra agree to it?

The turbo brothers stayed because they grew up on the northern beaches and want to play together. That's not loyalty to the club, that's serving their own interests. Fair play to them. Club loyalty is a long lost concept. If you or the turbo brothers think they aren't expendable you are naive.

Plenty of NRL players accept lower offers to stay at clubs. The Turbo brothers are two of many examples. Some players go for maximum dollars by the look of it but many don't. I'd say that many players have made a poor decision by going for maximum dollars. Moses Suli is another example which has just come to mind. He stayed at Manly for reasons other than maximum bickies.

TWAS, you know damn well there is more to this than the black and white in the contract. Fans have a right to be pissed off when they bring a guy from UK and he jumps ship for a small increase in salary. Was it within his rights, yes. Was it morally right, debatable. And the presence of Moses in the picture raises the question of the rationale for the move like it does for anything he touches. RL players don't need to consider the cash/country thing like rugby players but I am still not sure the interests of players and agents are perfectly aligned and that many players take advice that may not necessarily be right for them but that is great news for the agent. Agents know there will be different players to squeeze their 20% from in a decade. Players will be retired and wondering if they'd have preferred to be remembered as a one-club guy/a guy with 60 test caps, both of which might deliver more revenue after their playing days. And there is the completely illogical element to my argument; I don't like the smell of Moses and I am suspicious of all his moves. So there.

He's only burned goodwill with people who have no understanding that this is a scenario that the Raiders agreed to.

All of that is true but there does seem to be a common link to situations where Joe Public feel like players are more mercenary than others and it's the scumbag agent.

If it gives the option for him to decline the offer at the end of each season, he’s not secured for 3 years. It’s 3 years with an option. The club didn’t have to agree to it.

No. He was signed for 3 years ending at the end of 2021 with a clause that allows him to be upgraded at the end of each season. If he doesn't want the upgrade offered to him he is welcome to bugger off.