Opinion Bulldogs' Retention/Recruitment Team - Loyalty in the NRL

[Spoonman84]

Hard to believe that Eastwood was on 800K & Klemmer 400K.
I too would be annoyed.

Eastwood was only on that because his contract was heavily backloaded.........

 

[Howard Moon]

if Cleeland was as good as some think then he would have cracked first grade years ago.. age is not his friend now

Woolford is better than Lichaa and might have been worth holding onto

 

[TwinTurbo]

Hard to believe that Eastwood was on 800K & Klemmer 400K.
I too would be annoyed.

Back ended contracts make that sort of comparison meaningless, Eastwood was in the last year of a back ended contract whilst Klemmer was in the first year of a back ended contract.

Go Dogs

 

[KiwiDog7]

Love how media are spinning this story back on us by insinuating we ripped Klemmer off so he’s within his rights to go elsewhere

 

[Cook]

Why are people saying this is a loyalty issue? It's nothing to do with loyalty.

It's a contractual issue. David Klemmer signed a legally binding contract for four years.

He has not right to expect a release (although is perfectly within his rights to ask for one).

The Bulldogs response to this should be to put him firmly back in his box.

Just because you are worth more at a certain point in time doesn't allow you to play your current club for fools.

That's exactly right. You never see a player giving money back when he isn't living up to his contract. It's just bad luck.