The Roar
The Roar

Daniel Albright

Roar Pro

Joined December 2013

25.9k

Views

26

Published

29

Comments

Published

Comments

The MLS and NBA both use a designated player system. The NBA particularly has a focus on teams retaining top young players, with designated player contracts as well as the existence of Bird rights. The Bird rights allow teams to exceed the salary cap to resign their own long-term players, but there are maximum-salary contracts imposed upon this rule.

Setting the salary cap

There isn’t any doubt that Milford has a serious family situation and that Barba has clear emotional issues and a desire to return to his family. I don’t claim or believe that their compassionate grounds are illegitimate.

The potential issue is that players in the future will attempt to use compassionate grounds in order to move to a more advantageous situation. Though Barba had clear emotional issues which likely factored into the decision, his reason for seeking a release was related to being closer to his family. This raises the possibility that players will use ideas such as homesickness to move to a club they prefer and sign a new contract.

So I don’t deny the issues of Milford and Barba. I just consider that other players in the future may potentially use the precedent of these two players as a way to improve their own football situation.

Contracts, 'compassionate grounds' and the death of a legal document

The difficulty is within the wording of the clause. It only states that the Raiders will ‘look favourably’ upon requests related to his father’s health. It is true that Milford is within his rights to request a release, however the Raiders don’t have the obligation to grant it. It does raise the question over whether clauses such as this should be entered in contracts, whether it was by the Raiders or Milford’s management, as it significantly complicates negotiations and terminations.

Contracts, 'compassionate grounds' and the death of a legal document

There are positives for the Bulldogs with Barba’s release given he was a potential distraction but the Bulldogs weren’t the party actively seeking his release. Though his distraction is gone, could you not presume that the Bulldogs would still prefer to have the 2012 Dally M Medal winner playing for the team, rather than one of their competition opponents?

There shouldn’t be any doubt that Milford has a difficult family situation and that he cares about it strongly, as evidenced by having a contract recognising his family situation. However, the get-out clause in his contract is significantly more vague than Ricky Stuart’s clause, which stated he could gain a release after 30 days notice. Milford’s clause states the Raiders will ‘look favourably’ on any request for release related to his father’s health. Though he has compassionate grounds, his contract definitely doesn’t give him a proper get-out clause in comparison to Stuart’s.

Contracts, 'compassionate grounds' and the death of a legal document

close