Quote: Superted "Completely agree - but, he always expressed his desire to stay in the NRL if a deal was available, nowni get the deadline for this passed and he's played the whole scenario terribly - he's lost all credibility, but I still don't think it's right to essentially prevent him from earning what he's worth in a limited career given the relatively small timescales of the whole situation and the fact Leeds have sorted a replacement.
He is 100% wrong throughout this whole situation, Leeds absolutely have the moral and legal high ground and are IMO legally in a position to demand a fee - but I maintain, given the promptness of his his wish to renege (the fact it was off season and before he'd carried out any duties), his 'homebird' personality and personal situation and the fact Leeds sorted an adequate replacement, just let it go....'"
You are correct in assuming Leeds have the Legal and moral high ground and therefore can legally demand a fee, where you are wrong is the fact he missed his notification ( 1st September ) deadline by a couple of months and if that is what you call prompt then lets hope you don't become a time keeper.
He had also carried out his duties from he arrived in the UK until the point of informing Leeds of his intention to walk on on his contract ( Continuation of service ).
The players want to have large long term contracts as they have a short playing career which is fine but this deal has to work both ways employer / employee. If players want short termination contracts say one months notice then fine but I am sure clubs would not be prepared to pay the big dollars.
The main problem is the NRL clubs can pay a lot more then we can and therefore players will be enticed however if clubs don't stand up to this tactic then how many other players will be 'homesick' / retire and then turn up somewhere else for more money.
