If Mitchell doesn't sign anywhere next year and plays reserves, wonder if the players union can take action against the roosters for any ethical breach. It's definitely not in the spirit of the game you play a premier centre in a feeder club simply because he thought he's entitled or worth more after this contract is up.
This behavior has really put a scare in other recruits trying to negotiate now for 2021. The NRL laws are not protecting legitimate negotiations.
I'm hoping in our case that the club is withholding any signings announcements for 2021 as a gesture of good faith to the players to avoid similar ramifications as mentioned above.
No comment on the RLPA etc - but I do agree with your view on 2021 - whether or not situations are similar to Mitchell or not - I think it's common sense to say nothing for now.
Most highly paid / highly valued employees are shown the door immediately on resignation - they don't serve notice periods, unless it's on gardening leave. And most clubs if they can't negotiate an immediate transfer won't choose gardening leave because they're paying that player too much not to play them.
So let's assume that the Dogs have either secured some players for 2021 or are in late stage negotiations - but are telling those players and their managers 'We are not in a position to take you for 2020 if your club wants you to leave immediately, so we will announce the deal at an agreed time in 2020'.
I think most clubs are playing a similar game too - it's why no-one has announced a change of club for 2021 yet.
This whole idea of 1 November 12 months before the season in question lifting the lid on a raft of signing announcements never made sense to me - and I think the NRL should perhaps look into this policy - it's somewhat misleading.