Castle meets with NRL over Fifita

[immortalbulldog]

CANTERBURY chief executive Raelene Castle has met with the NRL Integrity Unit to discuss the Andrew Fifita *contract wrangle.

Castle said she had called the informal meeting late last week of her own accord amid reports that Fifita’s management could look to explore their legal options or compensation after his $3.2 million contract was terminated.

The development emerged as the Cronulla Sharks prepare to make a formal offer for Fifita within the next 48 hours, their second pursuit, after missing out on the World Cup-winning prop to the Bulldogs last month.

The new deal, which the Sharks were loath to table until after last night’s clash with the New Zealand Warriors, would keep Fifita at the club for the next four years.

With South Sydney no longer interested in Fifita, the Cronulla board ratified the decision when they met last Thursday. But it appears the NRL are taking the shock *termination of Fifita’s contract by the Bulldogs and claims that up to $400,000 of his reported $850,000 salary would be declared under the salary cap, seriously.

Castle’s ‘catch up’ with the NRL was held after Fifita’s management had handed over documents to Integrity Unit general counsel Nick Weeks last Tuesday.



Weeks is expected to report back to NRL Integrity Unit boss Jim Doyle once he returns from leave this week.

Castle was happy to confirm to The Sunday Telegraph she had spoken with Weeks.

However, Castle refuted the assertion — and one which had the league world talking last Friday — that the Dogs had been summoned to the NRL to explain how and why the deal fell over.


Andrew Fifita wrote his name in the dew at Sharks’ Remondis Stadium after his contract negotiations ended with the Bulldogs.Source: DailyTelegraph
“I was at the NRL for some other meetings and I had a casual conversation, certainly not in a formal sense no,’’ Castle said. “It wasn’t a ‘you need to answer these questions’ conversation, it was just an update on the matter.’’

Castle added that she was comfortable with the Bulldogs’ decision to sever Fifita’s contract.

One club monitoring the situation is the Wests Tigers, who are desperately trying to retain fullback James Tedesco.

Tedesco remains in negotiations with the Tigers despite serious interest from the Dogs.

Any salary cap issues uncovered by the NRL would place enormous pressure on Canterbury’s ability to secure the highly-talented Tedesco.

Sharks chief executive Steve Noyce said the club wasn’t prepared to discuss any proposed negotiations with Fifita or his management until after last night’s match.

“The priority for Andrew and the club this week has been preparing well for the Warriors,’’ Noyce said yesterday morning.


I also read another article that said other clubs will be forced to disclose their offers to Fifita. It sounds like the NRL will be taking this very seriously.

I hope and pray we have nothing to worry about, any problems would surely turn players and their managers off the club

 

[The DoggFather]

I think we have no case to answer.

 

[immortalbulldog]

I think we have no case to answer.

I hope so but all this talk of us not being able to come up with the money or whatever would still make it hard to attract players

 

[S4Sonny]

She should just walk in and say he's a dumb f*ck for yapping his mouth off before the contract was finalised and just walk out of the meeting

Like a boss.

 

[doggieaaron]

As gus gould said if Canterbury want a player money is no object ,this was a great move from our club

 

[GrogDog]

I hope our club is as smart as everyone thinks it is, a failure like this would be very unprofessional indeed. I agree 100% in Fajita not coming and was hugely relieved when it fell through. I think the NRL should allow clubs to guarantee 3rd party payments as they seem to be a huge topic these days and not in a good way. Fingers crossed Ralene is more than up to this one and has dotted the i's and crossed the t's on this MOU.

 

[BaYry Ward]

"Any salary cap issues uncovered by the NRL would place enormous pressure on Canterbury’s ability to secure the highly-talented Tedesco."

I fcking HATE how they throw that little line in.

How and when has it ever been stated by the NRL that they had concerns regarding our salary cap? That little line is purely a fckwit journo planting a seed for their own purpose.

 

[Captain Kickass]

I have it on good authority that Castle's meeting with Greenberg is a ruse designed to create the impression we're being pro-active, when in reality it's an excuse to meet with Todd and discuss the best techniques to employ when dealing with the media speculating on the clubs every move. *

(* - Statement may in fact be unfounded, and not based on any credible evidence)

 

[habs]

Dogs have no case to answer and Duh Fifi has crappy managers who can't close a deal.

 

[doggieaaron]

Fifita wished he'd signed with rugby we gave him his wish

 

[habs]

If I was the speculate and I could be wrong, the dispute is about the manager's commission.

 

[Powerslide]

If I was the speculate and I could be wrong, the dispute is about the manager's commission.

Actually this makes a lot of sense, has been the sticking point on a few negotiations before. As far as Salary Cap and TPA's are concerned if the proposed contract does not breach the rules or breach the wording of the MOU then nothing to worry about. If Fifita opening his mouth (announcing he was going to the dogs on a $$$ Deal) could be seen as a breach of the terms of the MOU then all bets are off.

Fifita opened his mouth inappropriately twice once after he signed the MOU about his move and two with his RU comments. If the Dogs did take some poetic license in his contract and he got it prior to his RU comments, he did not give the dogs much motivation to negotiate. In fact they would have given them motivation to find ways out of it.

When you are negotiating with a builder to build your house.... sometimes you need to nut out the details... You are trying to get as much included with as little variations as possible, and they want to make the most money and not be out of pocket with problems like requirements for extensive excavations and weather.

Other possibilities was performance clauses built into the contract, Let say 800K a year if he plays every game (Rep permitting) and the dogs make the finals. If he is out injured or a stint in reggies he would get less.

Who knows but I'm sure that Raelene is smart enough to make a move that will not put the club in hot water, but I am not sure Fifita and his management are smart enough to play the game and win.

 

[Bulldog John]

Actually this makes a lot of sense, has been the sticking point on a few negotiations before. As far as Salary Cap and TPA's are concerned if the proposed contract does not breach the rules or breach the wording of the MOU then nothing to worry about. If Fifita opening his mouth (announcing he was going to the dogs on a $$$ Deal) could be seen as a breach of the terms of the MOU then all bets are off.

Fifita opened his mouth inappropriately twice once after he signed the MOU about his move and two with his RU comments. If the Dogs did take some poetic license in his contract and he got it prior to his RU comments, he did not give the dogs much motivation to negotiate. In fact they would have given them motivation to find ways out of it.

When you are negotiating with a builder to build your house.... sometimes you need to nut out the details... You are trying to get as much included with as little variations as possible, and they want to make the most money and not be out of pocket with problems like requirements for extensive excavations and weather.

Other possibilities was performance clauses built into the contract, Let say 800K a year if he plays every game (Rep permitting) and the dogs make the finals. If he is out injured or a stint in reggies he would get less.

Who knows but I'm sure that Raelene is smart enough to make a move that will not put the club in hot water, but I am not sure Fifita and his management are smart enough to play the game and win.

The NRL should stand behind the Bulldogs and make an example of Fifita stating that they won't be pushed around by threats of code hopping from elite players. Problem solved.

 

[CroydonDog]

Todd Greenburg was on dead set legends or one of those shows on Saturday morning, and basically said that until a contract gets handed up to the NRL to register, its an issue between the club and player/manager.

 

[R0CKY]

So I still can't see the problem here if no contract was finalized...why the hell is there management being involved and $*** ...something better not happen to the dogs cause this is just bs

 

[Powerslide]

What I think is being proposed is that the contract was for less money and therefore suggesting that brown paper bags were being used to top up his contract.

I am sure that the dogs are not silly enough to have a significant discrepancy between MOU and Contract unless circumstances allow for it.

In regards to the Salary Cap and the Contract, I don't think we have much to worry about. Quoting around 400k from Cap in first year, well next year is first year and we have ~400K from this year and next (so 800k) from Barbas contract to splash so the dogs could afford to pay the full amount. If they have chosen not too well that is a different thing altogether and the NRL wouldn't care.

 

[habs]

What I think is being proposed is that the contract was for less money and therefore suggesting that brown paper bags were being used to top up his contract.

I am sure that the dogs are not silly enough to have a significant discrepancy between MOU and Contract unless circumstances allow for it.

In regards to the Salary Cap and the Contract, I don't think we have much to worry about. Quoting around 400k from Cap in first year, well next year is first year and we have ~400K from this year and next (so 800k) from Barbas contract to splash so the dogs could afford to pay the full amount. If they have chosen not too well that is a different thing altogether and the NRL wouldn't care.

Maybe that's the inference that his manager's want the public to infer. The dogs don't have a problem with getting unrelated third parties to sponsor a marquee player so they don't need brown paper bags or kebab wrappers.

I would also say that the if I was a hardcore dogs supporter prepared to back a marquee player and that marquee player comes out and says he hates the dogs and wished he signed for Rugby. I would pull the fekking plug straight away.

 

[Nano]

We have nothing to answer as nothing was really legally bound to this so called contract only a minor agreement was made but it fell through...

Maybe that's the inference that his manager's want the public to infer. The dogs don't have a problem with getting unrelated third parties to sponsor a marquee player so they don't need brown paper bags or kebab wrappers.

I would also say that the if I was a hardcore dogs supporter prepared to back a marquee player and that marquee player comes out and says he hates the dogs and wished he signed for Rugby. I would pull the fekking plug straight away.

Pretty much as habs said, could you imagine Jaycar or Doltone House asked to sponsor a player who doesn't like the club or the the code? It wouldn't happen unless this so called player can bring in money him self and Fifita doesn't seem to have that.