One year contracts only with no TPAs...would this work?

Just a thought, if the NRL shook things up and implemented one year contracts only with no TPAs do you all think this would work. It would stop back ending deals, players would be playing for a contract every year and the Mr Politis and alike would have to play fair. I’m sure there are many reasons why it wouldn’t work, however could it? Interested in opinions on this. Smoke me if you must. Just asking.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • If you're banning TPA's your banning TPA's. The duration seems irrelevant. Good luck policing it any case.

    Backending is a different issue and it's not outside the rules. All clubs do it. So why ban it?

    Clubs and players association would never buy into it in any case.
    • What other VEO's Fong? They weren't banging down the door when the job was vacamt after Seward got punted
  • We would have players leave our game or get poached by other sports
  • 1. Illegal/Against regulations to restrict trade

    2. Union would take our best players

    3. TPA's would still exist, just not out in the open

    • Spot on Fuuuii ..
  • Bernie not using TPA's. I thought the rules were that clubs can not have anything to do with a TPA, it had to be at arms length. My understanding is that the rules state that CEO's / Clubs cannot organise or guarantee any TPA, they must be sourced by the player or player manager all on their own to be legal under NRL rules. It's just all a great big capital F joke. Remove all restrictions and let each club sign who they want for whatever they want. Sink or swim, no bailouts. At the moment only a handful of clubs appear to be abiding by the rules and a select few at the top of the ladder hide the breach of salary cap so well that they literally have no cap now anyway.

    Calling Bernie a dope, well I'm not convinced he is, I think he is just very honest and operates by the rules. Unfortunately in the NRL world he is in the minority and whilst the others get away with it, then we can't compete in the market. The NRL are the only ones that can do something about it. Enforce it properly or get rid of it. 

  • The argument from the NRL is by removing TPA"s your removing a stream of cash that is investing in the NRL. The problem is it's only an extension of the salary cap. Politis and crow and I'm sure directors from the storm have businesses overseas. How hard would it be for crow to purchase a house for a Burgess in the UK, how the he'll will that be tracked. Same as politis.
  • The Players Association would never allow it, it's a blatant restraint of trade if there was one.

  • Put a cap on tpa’s and make all contracts public, just like they do in usa

    • They don't restrict how much players can outside of their game.

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Muttman replied to Muttman's discussion Site header
""
2 minutes ago
Blue Eel replied to Blue Eel's discussion Real Reason Parramatta Coach cut Zac Lomax Loose
"Love the input HOE and very well said. Pops your spot on with a lot of what your suggesting, and Coryn nails it as well.
I was oblivious to Lomax beating to his own drum, oblivious to the suggestion he wasn't a team first guy.
There are points made…"
4 minutes ago
Longfin Eel replied to Blue Eel's discussion Real Reason Parramatta Coach cut Zac Lomax Loose
"I thought he looked frustrated actually. Like he's trying too hard and it's not really coming off for him. I think he wants to be a player who controls the game, but I don't believe his skills are quite there to be that type of player. You certainly…"
8 minutes ago
GM replied to Blue Eel's discussion Real Reason Parramatta Coach cut Zac Lomax Loose
"The fact he looked as if he'd checked out half way through the season makes ur statement moot....Lomax is a very confused human being, we have had enough of that over 40 years, good luck Zac....I'm sure Parra will thrive without you, no more the…"
15 minutes ago
More…