Lyon to Manly ? When hell freezes over.
Gronk221
Shock Eels Lyon edict
By Dean Ritchie
August 4, 2004
PARRAMATTA are poised to shock rugby league by releasing runaway centre
Jamie Lyon, but only if he joins Penrith and not Manly.
The explosive development could lead to the Sea Eagles starting legal
action against Parramatta for restraint of trade.
The Daily Telegraph understands Lyon would return to the NRL next season
although the proposal is in its infancy.
Lyon walked out on Parramatta on March 16 this year and has played the
past six months with his hometown club the Wee Waa Panthers in Group 4.
Parramatta chief executive Denis Fitzgerald has not officially met with
Penrith over the possible deal but some senior Panthers managers are
aware of the situation.
"We have agreed to give Jamie permission to speak with Penrith,"
Fitzgerald said.
Fitzgerald is holding discussions through Mick Kelly - a former Penrith
player and also Lyon's uncle and secondary manager.
Kelly, who wants his nephew to join Penrith, spoke to Parramatta general
manager of football Greg Mitchell yesterday.
The Eels would ask Penrith for a release fee.
There are, however, some concerns that Penrith may not be able to fit
Lyon into their salary cap.
The possible signing of former Test player Lyon would be ideal for
Penrith who lose 2003 grand final centres Ryan Girdler (retirement) and
Paul Whatuira (Wests Tigers) at the end of the season.
It is understood Lyon was interested in joining Manly because of his
friendship with former Parramatta official, now Manly recruitment
officer, Noel Cleal.
This is understood to be the cause of tensions between the two clubs.
Fitzgerald was reluctant to discuss the Lyon drama last night but did
say: "We were approached by Mick Kelly about Jamie joining Penrith.
Jamie has said he didn't like city life but Penrith is a semi-rural
area.
"We are only discussing the issue at this stage. We haven't released him
- I want to make that point."
Manly chief executive Paul Cummings contacted Fitzgerald yesterday
asking for the Sea Eagles to hold discussions with Lyon. Fitzgerald
refused.
Asked why he rejected Manly, Fitzgerald said: "No comment."
Cummings said: "I rang Denis as I understood the Parramatta club was to
give Jamie a release.
"He indicated it was a release to Penrith.
"I asked whether Manly could join the discussions. Denis said no. He
said it was Penrith and Penrith only.
"Personally I think it is a restraint of trade and that is dangerous
ground."
Asked if Manly would consider legal proceedings, Cummings said: "We'll
wait and see. We don't want a slanging match with Parramatta. We did
tell Parramatta we wouldn't interfere with the process."
The former representative centre quit the NRL, citing a dislike for city
life.
The Daily Telegraph + Gronk
Bunny
"Gronk221" <gron...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:Xns953B52D92BFBBg...@61.9.191.5...
> http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,10338660-23209,00.html
>
> Shock Eels Lyon edict
> By Dean Ritchie
> August 4, 2004
>
> PARRAMATTA are poised to shock rugby league by releasing runaway centre
> Jamie Lyon, but only if he joins Penrith and not Manly.
>
Jamie Lyon should either complete his contract with Parramatta or be
released by the club with no further commitment.
AFAIC there are three options. 1) Lyon plays for Parramatta for the
remainder of his contract; 2) Lyon does not play for Parramatta or anyone
else for the remainder of his contract and they fight out the money issues;
3) Parramatta and Lyon agree on a settlement amount for the contract and
damages (if applicable), Lyon is released and is free to play for whoever.
I think some of this type of problem might be the way contracts are
structured these days. It seems that players are signed for X dollars for X
seasons with little provision for performance etc. It might not hurt to go
back to a structured contract where a player receives a sign-on fee, then a
fee per match where the player is available (not based on selection or
players might get dropped to save the club money - al la Redfern rumours)
and a set % if the player is injured.
I don't see why a player should get 100% if he is injured. While it isn't
necessarily a player's fault that he is injured, it is a contact sport and
injuries are expected to happen. I can't see why the club should wear the
burden of a player's injury on their own - especially where you have an
older player who is more likely to be hurt, or recover slowly from injury.
Igor
wrote:
>I don't see why a player should get 100% if he is injured. While it isn't
>necessarily a player's fault that he is injured, it is a contact sport and
>injuries are expected to happen. I can't see why the club should wear the
>burden of a player's injury on their own - especially where you have an
>older player who is more likely to be hurt, or recover slowly from injury.
>
>
The irony of this sentiment is that it goes to the heart of rugby
league and its birth as a sport.
Rugby union was ok for the middle classes who had well paying,
non-manual jobs that would support them if they were to be injured.
The working classes, however, were up shit creek if they got injured
playing rugby for the love of it. Hence, the genesis of the 13 man
game.
Think it through. Think how many players would be deterred from
playing the game professionally if their income was in risk of being
substantially reduced. Rugby league players aren't millionaires. They
have mortgaes and families to support and if a $100k contract was
reduced to $40k due to injury, what would become of the players family
and outstanding financial commitments?
Imagine if you had a job that was inherently dangerous and your
employer suddenly says "You know this job is dangerous so we're not
going to look after you properly if you should be maimed or injured in
the course of the work." If you believe in your rights, you'd be off
to your lawyer.
Bunny
"Igor" <pd...@shotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g5i0h0tulqe7jlr87...@4ax.com...
I'd be off to my insurance broker to get covered for the shortfall before I
signed the contract.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but on your point about RL players
not being millionaires, neither are the clubs. For every player who goes out
injured the club has to pay his wage as well as the replacement's. I don't
see that the club needs to solely take responsibility for what happens on
the field.
Molly
"Bunny" <Wooden...@Redfern.com> wrote in message
news:XGZPc.32226$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
There is an assumption of risk taken by the club when the contract is
signed.
If a player gets injured, the contract is paid out as that is the
understanding when the contract is signed.
To suggest a player should get less because he is injured is ridiculous.
There is no logical argument that would support that stance.
The club is already paying the replacements wage, so I dont see how there is
any additional finacial pressure on clubs. Aslo, not all injuries happen on
the field, how about a training injury that results in a knee recon and
sidelined for 12 months?
The club is the employer, if the player is injured providing the service to
the employer under the terms of the contract, the player should be
protected.
Bunny
"Molly" <jane...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:41106...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Perhaps the logical argument is that a player, as a contractor, should
appropriately insure himself against lost wages through injury. If you hire
a painter to paint your house, he get's the job half finished and breaks his
hand do you pay 100% of the bill and casually go hire another painter? I
think not. If it really is a problem for players to arrange insurance
themselves a solution might be for the club to incorporate the insurance
cover in the player's contract terms. Either way, no person with half a
brain would simply expect the club to fork out however much because it suits
the players.
> The club is already paying the replacements wage, so I dont see how there
is
> any additional finacial pressure on clubs.
Incentive contracts.
Aslo, not all injuries happen on
> the field, how about a training injury that results in a knee recon and
> sidelined for 12 months?
Still an injury related to employment. Comes under the terms of the same
policy.
>
> The club is the employer, if the player is injured providing the service
to
> the employer under the terms of the contract, the player should be
> protected.
>
Absolutely, either under the terms of the award which doesn't apply in this
case, or the terms of the contract.
Igor
wrote:
>http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,10338660-23209,00.html
>
>Shock Eels Lyon edict
>By Dean Ritchie
>August 4, 2004
>
>PARRAMATTA are poised to shock rugby league by releasing runaway centre
>Jamie Lyon, but only if he joins Penrith and not Manly.
>
>The Daily Telegraph + Gronk
Despite all the rhetoric about wanting to get away from the city,
reevaluating priorities, etc it seems we're back to what many
suspected all along. That is, Lyon is prepared to live and play in
Sydney for anybody but Parramatta / Brian Smith.
If this is how he truly feels then I'm shattered.
Ben Gussey
news:XGZPc.32226$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
I
> signed the contract.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree with you, but on your point about RL players
> not being millionaires, neither are the clubs.
Are we just talking about Souths here? :P
Regards,
Ben.
Ben Gussey
>
> Perhaps the logical argument is that a player, as a contractor, should
> appropriately insure himself against lost wages through injury. If you
hire
> a painter to paint your house, he get's the job half finished and breaks
his
> hand do you pay 100% of the bill and casually go hire another painter? I
> think not. If it really is a problem for players to arrange insurance
> themselves a solution might be for the club to incorporate the insurance
> cover in the player's contract terms. Either way, no person with half a
> brain would simply expect the club to fork out however much because it
suits
> the players.
What insurance company would take it on though? At least half the players
are basically guaranteed to be injured at some point in the season. I can't
see how an insurance company could afford to reimburse clubs.
I understand your point of view but I can't really fathom how it could be
logically achieved.
Regards,
Ben.
DaNRL
They wear it because the player has injured himself whilst in service for
the club, much like any other employee would have to.
Daniel.
Bunny
"Ben Gussey" <g.delspam...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:41109a45$0$16103$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Neither do I. It seems unreasonable to me that Brisbane (for example) have
had to pay Darren Smith, Ben Ikin and now apparently Paul Green to play to
cover injuries and it comes at the club's expense entirely. The other factor
is it might put them over the salary cap. The clubs don't stand a chance.
Chris Hill
"Bunny" <Wooden...@Redfern.com> wrote in message
It won't put them over the main salary cap (which is limited to the top 25
players), but it may put them over the secondary salary cap (players in
first grade that aren't in the top 25). From memory, it is limited to
$300,000. South ran into problems with that last year, and are almost
certain to run into the same problems this year.
All employers in Queensland are required to have Workers Compensation, which
covers all employees and certain contractors. When the employee is injured
during their work, the employer pays a small amount for an excess and
Workcover takes over the rest of the payments. Why couldn't this apply in a
sporting club?
Cheers
Chris
Gronk221
I dont think that a change of coach at Parra would help. As the article
suggests...
"It is understood Lyon was interested in joining Manly because of his
friendship with former Parramatta official, now Manly recruitment
officer, Noel Cleal.
This is understood to be the cause of tensions between the two clubs."
... the problem seems to stem from Parra ending the Cleal recruitment
officer position. Obvioulsy Killer thinks that Crusher was hard done by.
I can tell you one thing, most of the Parra supporters I know hope that
he rots in Wee Waa until end 2006.
Gronk
Richard Edlin
Bunny wrote:
> "Gronk221" <gron...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:Xns953B52D92BFBBg...@61.9.191.5...
>
>>http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,10338660-23209,00.html
>>
>>Shock Eels Lyon edict
>>By Dean Ritchie
>>August 4, 2004
>>
>>PARRAMATTA are poised to shock rugby league by releasing runaway centre
>>Jamie Lyon, but only if he joins Penrith and not Manly.
>>
>
>
> Jamie Lyon should either complete his contract with Parramatta or be
> released by the club with no further commitment.
As long as he's still under contract, he can only play where Parramatta
allows him to. As he doesn't want too play for Parra, they are free to
set whatever terms they want as to who he does play for.
It's not a restraint of trade --- he freely chose to join Parramatta.
That, and not any move to Manly, is the "trade" at issue here.
> I don't see why a player should get 100% if he is injured. While it isn't
> necessarily a player's fault that he is injured, it is a contact sport and
> injuries are expected to happen. I can't see why the club should wear the
> burden of a player's injury on their own - especially where you have an
> older player who is more likely to be hurt, or recover slowly from injury.
If the clubs want, they can get insurance to compensate for the loss of
any players. The player's aren't normally to blame for getting injured,
so I don't see why they should be punished.
Richard.
Richard Edlin
Bunny wrote:
> "Molly" <jane...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:41106...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
>>"Bunny" <Wooden...@Redfern.com> wrote in message
>>news:XGZPc.32226$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Perhaps the logical argument is that a player, as a contractor, should
> appropriately insure himself against lost wages through injury. If you hire
> a painter to paint your house, he get's the job half finished and breaks his
> hand do you pay 100% of the bill and casually go hire another painter? I
> think not. If it really is a problem for players to arrange insurance
> themselves a solution might be for the club to incorporate the insurance
> cover in the player's contract terms. Either way, no person with half a
> brain would simply expect the club to fork out however much because it suits
> the players.
Your analogy is false.
You hire one painter. The painter has a lot of clients ... so rather
than every client arranging insurance, it's much more efficient if the
painter arranges insurance for non-completion.
A player is contracted to one club. The club has lots of players ... so
it again makes more sense that the club arranges the insurance. Or,
alternatively, the NRL could arrange insurance for all players in all
the clubs.
Richard.
Bunny
"Richard Edlin" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41124906...@hotmail.com...
That was one of the options I mentioned " a solution might be for the club
to incorporate the insurance
> > cover in the player's contract terms". Either way, the club shouldn't
have to cop the entire wage bill covering injured players..
>
Bunny
But it's okay to punish the club. We have contractors at my work, all signed
individually just like a football player. If they get sick, they rely on
their insurance for wages, not the employer.
Josh Button
signed
> individually just like a football player. If they get sick, they rely on
> their insurance for wages, not the employer.
>
>
If they hurt their backs at work, they get workers comp, depending where
they are through workcover I'd say. Not their own insurance.
--
Josh Button
Go Parra in 2004
(remove _nospam_ to reply)
Josh Button
--
Josh Button
Go Parra in 2004
(remove _nospam_ to reply)
"Gronk221" <gron...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:Xns953BE3FD89167g...@61.9.191.5...
Either that or comes back and honours his contract for the next 2 seasons
like a man.
Igor
What you said Josh is more along the lines of my thinking.
Igor
wrote:
>I dont think that a change of coach at Parra would help. As the article
>suggests...
>
>Gronk
I understand that.
It's still shattering to see the one truly class back we've produced
since Kenny, Ella, Grothe not want to play for us.
I remember thinking what a fuct decision it was to let go of Crusher
and telling a mate he couldn't have been paid that much since his
position had already been made part-time anyway. Furthermore, I felt
the pokie tax reasoning proferred by Mr D Fitzgerald was absolute
bullshit, political blackmail.
I don't see how he could have been paid more than $60k + expenses to
do his job. He gets us a steady stream of good young prospects from
the country, including our TWO BEST PLAYERS, one of whom would
arguably be the best player in his position in 2004. Said player fucks
off to his home town and we pay (at least) $300k for a (slightly)
inferior player to replace him. Genius thinking, Denis.
Igor
wrote:
>The player's aren't normally to blame for getting injured,
>so I don't see why they should be punished.
>
>Richard.
Hang on, Richard. What if you fall over and reinjure yourself whilst
getting out of a mate's car?
DaNRL
Because Workers Comp schemes dont cover professional sports people, the
chance of injury is way too high and all that would end up happening is
everyone would end up having to pay more to cover RL players. The NRL and
football clubs are the main beneficiaries of the act which has caused these
injuries, it is only proper that they self insure themselves for the costs.
As it always has been so shall it be.
Daniel.
DaNRL
Just because you guys are pricks doesn't mean RL clubs should be too.
Daniel.
DaNRL
Normally Igor Normally
Daniel.
DaNRL
Either way it amounts to the same thing. If it was cheaper for the clubs to
take out insurance to cover this sort of thing they'd do it. The fact they
don't is probably because it's just cheaper to self insure and cover the
costs as they come along. All taking out insurance would do it add a margin
that would keep the insurance brokers fat.
Daniel.
paul
wrote:
There is a legal test for this. When you hire a painter, he agrees to
do the work within a specified period for a specified consideration.
You don't however, tell him what time he must appear for work each
day, nor on what days he must or must not work (although this may be
specified in the contract), nor what sort of paint brush he must use
nor do you instruct him on exactly how he must work, even though you
will instruct him on the required end result. The painter may also
employ others to assist him to do the work or even to do the work on
his behalf. The painter is a contractor and carries his own insurance.
A Rugby League player in the employment of a club is told exactly what
days and times he must turn up for training or for games, and is
required to do exactly what he is told during the times he is at work.
I think this would make Rugby League first graders employees, rather
than contractors, and clubs would be expected to have Workers
Compensation, unless there is some specific provision for professional
sports people.
In other words, the fact that you work from a contract doesn't
necessarily make you a contractor.
paul
Bunny
"DaNRL" <asrlto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ngqbb...@uni-berlin.de...
Why not? Most RL supporters are. Take a look at the other people who
contribute in here.
Richard Edlin
Igor wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 15:45:59 +0100, Richard Edlin <ric...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The player's aren't normally to blame for getting injured,
>>so I don't see why they should be punished.
> Hang on, Richard. What if you fall over and reinjure yourself whilst
> getting out of a mate's car?
Should I say "for on field and training injuries, ..."
Richard.