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.
