They didn’t sign pay. Old mob did.
True technically you are right, Dib appointed Pay in September 2017. But the NRL did not officially register his appointment until late February 2018, extending the December 2017 deadline. Reason was due to an
imperium ( injunction ) filed in the Supreme Court by Hasler's Legal Counsel, to enforce Des's contractual consideration.
I was in the Supreme Court late February, when Greenberg officially applied to the Court to set aside without prejudice, the NRL's acceptance of Canterbury's termination of obligations to Hasler and endorsed Pay's legal contractual appointment. He did this because he wanted the Court to clarify and admit the NRL's position and actions into the transcript of evidence. Greenberg was advised, that if mediation broke down between Hasler and the new board, Hasler was going to pursue
ultricies legalis ( legal compensation ).
So it was imperative for the NRL not to perpetuate an error, which in conscience could bind them in company with Canterbury for any future judicial consequence and restitution to an injured party. Greenberg sought the necessary decree and entitlements from the Court, to make own decisions about the development or
interpretationes legis ( interpretations of the law ). The Court's decision stopped Hasler's Counsel from applying for a
quam ordinem iudicum ( judicial order ), restraining Canterbury and Pay from beginning or continuing an action. The order would have been based on a legal excuse and the impossibility that Des was afforded the opportunity to perform, or compelling him from carrying out certain contractual acts.
This Court decision avoided any NRL embarrassment. Which would have arisen if Pay's contract was ruled to be set aside or terminated after it was registered. The NRL safeguarded it's integrity, without threatening or invading any of Hasler's future
iura legitimum ( legal rights ), that was violated by Canterbury's breach of promise.
So in simple terms, Dib announced a legal contractual agreement, which Des accepted in good faith. He also announced a legal contractual agreement, which Pay accepted in good faith. The NRL according to articles in it's constitution can register one contract and de-register the other. But there is a problem since both contracts have legal standing. So the NRL needed a court judgement and/or exemption from any liabilities before acting on both contracts.
The new board had every opportunity from pulling out of Pay's contract, with only consequence being scope of work performed to date. They had three options.
1) Establish baselines for a future project, re-instate Des to avoid a payout but compensate Pay.
2) Compensate Des and finalize Pay's registration with NRL.
3) Compensate both Pay and Des, appoint a caretaker coach, until they created a calculated transparent future plan.
They picked the second option which in my opinion was lazy, had no vision and most likely to fail.