CODY Walker could sensationally walk out on South Sydney.

[Oatley Dog]

And my original point was to have a contract between the NRL and the player setting their upper limit on earnings on any contract for the period of any other contract submitted for approval to the NRL which would 100% be fine holding up at law, it wouldn't even have to, as presumably the NRL would just not sign off on a contract that broke that prior agreement.

Not sure if I'm explaining this poorly or your just refusing to understand the concept so you can tell me more about dates or TPA's or other things that have nothing to do with it, lets drop it, your pro-players wiggling out of contracts at will, got it.

There are no contracts between the NRL and the player. The contracts are all between the club and the player, the NRL only registers it after it has been agreed to by the club and player. Simply put you can't introduce punitive conditions to a contract without a consideration. Just doing it because it makes you feel better can't work. I have no interest in what players earn or how. All I care about is if my team wins or not, but if someone puts forward a proposition that doesn't make sense then I say something.

 

[Ahecee]

There are no contracts between the NRL and the player. The contracts are all between the club and the player, the NRL only registers it after it has been agreed to by the club and player. Simply put you can't introduce punitive conditions to a contract without a consideration. Just doing it because it makes you feel better can't work. I have no interest in what players earn or how. All I care about is if my team wins or not, but if someone puts forward a proposition that doesn't make sense then I say something.

I understand there aren't any contracts between the NRL and a player, I'm proposing there should be, or, doesn't even have to be a contract, just a ruling that there will be that understanding from the NRL that when a player signs a contract with any team within the league they would be free to exit that contract if both they and the team agrees as now, but that a new contract with a separate team wouldn't be registered with the NRL if it had payment greater than the money outlined in the previous contract that hadn't expired.

But yeh, whatever, I'm with you. I can't say I really care, this doesn't impact the Bulldogs, so, whatever. Just its not a isolated issue within the NRL, and I find it mildly annoying to hear someone crying that they agreed to being paid more than most will ever see in a year, but now a few games later, thats not good enough and should be doubled. Seems every team has someone thinking they are worth Thurston career money without doing the work he did, and stand almost no chance of achieving even half what he has, we've got one, so why shouldn't Souths I guess.

 

[D.O.W.]

Cry me a river.

He signed the contract because he thought it was a great deal, now the greedy guts wants more money.

He has to honour the deal.

Exactly, you can't have your cake and eat it.
The key there was he thought the original deal was great, but now that he's shining mid-way through, at some point he has to credit his employer (Souths) with the foresight and faith that they had in him.

He made his debut at 26, he could have been in reggies for the rest of his career.