Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:14 pm  

I suspect this case may be resolved quickly, with Cas being scared off a long legal persuit and agreeing to Sale's terms. If not, it's a case that could have enormous ramifications for professional sport in this country. For me, the issue isn't Solomona singing for or playing for Sale, it's him reneging on a legally binding contract with Cas. I'd suspect the legal action will have to be Cas against Solomona rather than Cas against Sale.

If Solomona is able to just walk away from one professional sports contract and take another, I cannot see why a football player couldn't. You could end up with all professional sports contracts being pay as you play, with players moving freely between teams. As with the salary cap, any governing body rules to prevent it could easily be overcome legally as a restriction of trade.

Of course, I might not be right with any of that.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:23 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

I suspect this case may be resolved quickly, with Cas being scared off a long legal persuit and agreeing to Sale's terms. If not, it's a case that could have enormous ramifications for professional sport in this country. For me, the issue isn't Solomona singing for or playing for Sale, it's him reneging on a legally binding contract with Cas. I'd suspect the legal action will have to be Cas against Solomona rather than Cas against Sale.

If Solomona is able to just walk away from one professional sports contract and take another, I cannot see why a football player couldn't. You could end up with all professional sports contracts being pay as you play, with players moving freely between teams. As with the salary cap, any governing body rules to prevent it could easily be overcome legally as a restriction of trade.

Of course, I might not be right with any of that.

The problem with the Solomona case, compared with say, football, is that, a footballer couldn't go an play basketball or rugby etc.
However the skill set between League and Union is pretty transferable.
I dont think that any other sport would have this issue but,you would think that Cas have some kind of case against the player, rather than Sale.
However, you would also expect the player to have been receiving some "advice" from somewhere.
The average person wouldn't just walk away from a contract and expect no kind of "cost".

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:28 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

However, you would also expect the player to have been receiving some "advice" from somewhere.
The average person wouldn't just walk away from a contract and expect no kind of "cost".

I don't know who DS agent is but I would imagine the "advice" came from him.

Heard a couple of advancements today. The RFL are now involved with the case and CTRLFC have suspended DS for missing training.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Wed Nov 09, 2016 5:38 pm  

In law a third party can be sued for encouraging a breach of contract between two other parties. Also, despite the 'nicety' of Union and League being different sports, judges are not fools, and I don't think that a judge would be willing to allow such a literal interpretation in the case of employment law.

All in all, though, Cas should try to settle out of court. As others have said, though it's always shocking when a player refuses to honour a contract, he can't be forced to play, or at least to play well, so its a no-win situation.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:12 pm  

Asgardian13 wrote:

In law a third party can be sued for encouraging a breach of contract between two other parties. Also, despite the 'nicety' of Union and League being different sports, judges are not fools, and I don't think that a judge would be willing to allow such a literal interpretation in the case of employment law.

All in all, though, Cas should try to settle out of court. As others have said, though it's always shocking when a player refuses to honour a contract, he can't be forced to play, or at least to play well, so its a no-win situation.

We could take him out?

Kidnapp his Mrs?

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:44 am  

Whilst the financial clout is with RU, I would also doubt whether that sport (or Sale) would want a precedent to be set in this regard either.

Also, as some have said, the mere fact that Solomona would be employed in the same role in another sport would suggest that they are close enough to be counted as the same in a professional sense. This isn't a doctor deciding to become a lawyer overnight.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:41 am  

Cas were offered £300k for Denny Solomona and didn't take it?!
Sorry but Denny is a good finisher who benefited from the expansive rugby Cas played last year. He's not worth that.
Cas should have taken the money and bought a superstar with it.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:52 am  

This is what we get when we have a nearly quarter of a century old Salary Cap. The Cap needs upping! We're treading water as a league because the Cap is so out of date.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implicationsb : Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:10 am  

Psychedelic Casual wrote:

This is what we get when we have a nearly quarter of a century old Salary Cap. The Cap needs upping! We're treading water as a league because the Cap is so out of date.

Only recently have most clubs started spending at or near the full cap. And it's not like the clubs are ploughing money into other areas like marketing or youth production. The salary cap is a red herring. The issue is revenue.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:45 am  

Psychedelic Casual wrote:

This is what we get when we have a nearly quarter of a century old Salary Cap. The Cap needs upping! We're treading water as a league because the Cap is so out of date.

Upping the salary cap would not help Cas Tigers in this situation at all. We pay what we can - which is just under the cap. HIM is correct - revenue is the problem - not the SC.