Rumour Brandon smith done deal

[Ripley]

I’m not sure under what circumstances a player and a club would agree to an “either” option.

I really can’t either. I can only assume one party asked for an option and then the other in an act of tit for tat said “OK, well I want one too!”

But here’s the thing, no matter how strange and unusual, at least it’s binding. Harry or The Storm decide to exercise the option, the other party is bound to it, legally, having signed the stupid thing in the first place.

Under your “NRL contracts definition” nobody is bound to anything. Harry or The Storm decide to exercise their option, the other party says “no” or “pineapple”, nobody is bound to anything, nobody has redress to anything.

It is the very definition of not being worth the paper it is written on.

Maybe you can ask The Law Society what the fuck it’s supposed to achieve because I’m sure any Judge who was asked to rule on it would be asking.

He could rule in favour of the pineapple for all the sense it would make.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Oh come on mate, it’s the exact wording from this article https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/mutual-option
You gonna tell me The NRL copy and paste their “NRL contracts definitions” from mlb.com?
Somebody copy and pasted it, and it wasn’t The NRL

You can believe whatever you want, that's your choice. The wording I used is from the Law Society and it's the same wording the NRL uses, at least in the contracts that I have seen.

Can I respectfully suggest that you look up the dictionary meaning of "mutual", you will find that it require both parties to agree (eg; mutual consent).

He’s never wrong bro don’t bother [emoji23]

I am wrong quite often, and when I am I admit it. In this case I am not wrong, mutual option means both parties must agree. So either it's not a mutual option or the media article is incorrect. My guess is the latter, based on the media's accuracy record.


Always a Bulldog

 

[TwinTurbo]

I really can’t either. I can only assume one party asked for an option and then the other in an act of tit for tat said “OK, well I want one too!”

But here’s the thing, no matter how strange and unusual, at least it’s binding. Harry or The Storm decide to exercise the option, the other party is bound to it, legally, having signed the stupid thing in the first place.

Under your “NRL contracts definition” nobody is bound to anything. Harry or The Storm decide to exercise their option, the other party says “no” or “pineapple”, nobody is bound to anything, nobody has redress to anything.

It is the very definition of not being worth the paper it is written on.

Maybe you can ask The Law Society what the fuck it’s supposed to achieve because I’m sure any Judge who was asked to rule on it would be asking.

He could rule in favour of the pineapple for all the sense it would make.

Mutual options in contracts are a bit unusual in the NRL but not all that uncommon in other professional sports. They usually arise when both parties are not sure what the situation will be at the end of the contract period. They can incorporate ratchet payments, to entice the player to exercise their option. In the clubs case they get the extra year which is their enticement to exercise the option. My experience is it forces the player (+ agent/manager) and the club to negotiate and find a middle ground for the option period. During which time they can negotiate the next contract. Grant's contract apparently has some unusual triggers, one of them was a minimum number of NRL games (partially due to CSmith's reluctance to set a firm retirement date), which was most likely the reason for the Tigers swap. Otherwise he may well have been able to walk out back then.

I guess we might find out in 5 sleeps, or not.

Always a Bulldog

 

[Ripley]

Mutual options in contracts are a bit unusual in the NRL but not all that uncommon in other professional sports. They usually arise when both parties are not sure what the situation will be at the end of the contract period. They can incorporate ratchet payments, to entice the player to exercise their option. In the clubs case they get the extra year which is their enticement to exercise the option. My experience is it forces the player (+ agent/manager) and the club to negotiate and find a middle ground for the option period. During which time they can negotiate the next contract. Grant's contract apparently has some unusual triggers, one of them was a minimum number of NRL games (partially due to CSmith's reluctance to set a firm retirement date), which was most likely the reason for the Tigers swap. Otherwise he may well have been able to walk out back then.

I guess we might find out in 5 sleeps, or not.

Always a Bulldog

Look, absolute rubbish, the lot of that. None of it would be applicable under the Law Society’s interpretation because as soon as one side says no… what does ratchet clauses and Cam Smith matter?

Can you explain to me what is enforceable in a contract where the year option has to be agreed to by both parties? One side says no - what is enforceable upon them, what is the redress available to the other party? That’s what contracts are for.

And you’ll be looking a long time because the answer is there is NONE to either party of anything.

The situation you describe is called a negotiation for contract extension or not.

 

[Doggy71]

Cheese ain't coming boys, he's nothing but an afterthought now. Young Josh Cook will become our 9. Both Gus and Shane Richardson rate the kid. Watch this space.

 

[PaulS]

Cheese ain't coming boys, he's nothing but an afterthought now. Young Josh Cook will become our 9. Both Gus and Shane Richardson rate the kid. Watch this space.

Heard the same. Josh Cook needs to be given an opportunity.

Highly rated and genuine first grader

 

[TwinTurbo]

Can you explain to me what is enforceable in a contract where the year option has to be agreed to by both parties? One side says no - what is enforceable upon them, what is the redress available to the other party? That’s what contracts are for.

In a Mutual Option situation if both parties exercise their options then the contract continues as per previous years, the the original terms of the contract are enforceable.

In a Mutual Option situation if only one party exercises their option then the contract terminates, that's enforceable.

Mutual Options can have incentives to exercise the option, something like the player gets a 10% pay rise if he exercises his option. The club might exercise their option if they think he is worth that. The contract option is then enforceable.

I am not a lawyer but I do get involved in reviewing commercial contracts with mutual options quite often, in the right situations they are very useful.

Always a Bulldog

 

[2012]

So who is our competition to sign him ? Where do we rank ? What are the chances ?

 

[Gene Krupa]

Gus is good mates with bellamy,actually helped him make his decision ( with some advice) to stay in melbourne just recently.
Who knows

Bellyache was never leaving the Storm. Every contract renewal time, he says he could leave.

 

[Family Guy]

Cheese ain't coming boys, he's nothing but an afterthought now. Young Josh Cook will become our 9. Both Gus and Shane Richardson rate the kid. Watch this space.

Would prefer Smith but I'll be happy with Cook being the starting 9. As long as JMK is playing NSW Cup next year I'm happy.

 

[Bulldogsteve]

Would prefer Smith but I'll be happy with Cook being the starting 9. As long as JMK is playing NSW Cup next year I'm happy.

have you even seen him play? i bet 99% of people on here have not seen him play yet they want him in FG.

 

[Dogmonster]

Everyone, I cut the cheese, smell it.

 

[Bulldog1966]

^^^ FMD ...

Whilst he is unlikely to come here if it comes down to a bidding war(and we couldn't afford him for '22 anyway if he was to pissoff early), i'd love to know where some of you guys "have heard" and then "heard the same" re him not coming to the dogs sounds like just guesswork...or if not who is your source?
His agent has stated in recent days that all clubs should email/contact him with offers as of Nov 1.... idk at all if we're playing hardball to get him anymore but i'd be surprised if we now have ZERO interest.

 

[Kung fu man]

^^^ FMD ...

Whilst he is unlikely to come here if it comes down to a bidding war(and we couldn't afford him for '22 anyway if he was to pissoff early), i'd love to know where some of you guys "have heard" and then "heard the same" re him not coming to the dogs sounds like just guesswork...or if not who is your source?
His agent has stated in recent days that all clubs should email/contact him with offers as of Nov 1.... idk at all if we're playing hardball to get him anymore but i'd be surprised if we now have ZERO interest.
[/Q
The club have said zero so id say we are in it up to our balls

 

[Bazildog]

^^^ FMD ...

Are you a looker?

 

[Dogmonster]

Bidding war hey, I say Roosters for chicken and cheese.

 

[Bulldog1966]

Are you a looker?

A looker? huh? i was pointing upwards at Dogmonsters lame post?? which i noticed you laughed at lol

 

[Bazildog]

A looker? huh? i was pointing upwards at Dogmonsters lame post?? which i noticed you laughed at lol

I thought it was invitation for someone to fuck you until dead.. that’s why I asked if your a looker, you know hot n stuff. Oh, and hopefully female..

 

[Dogmonster]

Come on Bulldog 1966 are you to old for a fart joke, your bladder to weak to let one rip, we won't tell anyone you shit yourself when you fart shhhhooosh.

 

[2144superman]

Brandon Smith will sign with the Titans, David Fifita and Tino have come out and said they are always in conversation with him trying to entice him to the Titans. Brandon has already rejected a $750k a season deal from the Storm