Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:34 pm  

bentleberry wrote:

As to Solomona, if Cas have rejected his retirement then they will need to continue paying him unless it explicitly states in his contract that they can stop his wage... If it doesn't and they have stopped it then Solomona could take Castleford to an ET for withholding his wage.

Not so. If Solomona has committed the repudiatory (first fundamental) breach of contract, Castleford are entitled to dismiss him and pursue him for the financial loss caused by his repudiatiry breach.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:36 pm  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

Yes he can. It's a breach of contract, and he becomes liable for any financial loss to the employer, but the days of forced labour ended decades ago.

How can you breach a contract which has ended? You can't.

He must satisfy that contract in one way or another, which could be financial recompense.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:40 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

How can you breach a contract which has ended? You can't.

He must satisfy that contract in one way or another, which could be financial recompense.

Because in this case, the ending is the breach. The day he didn't report to work and informed Castleford he did not intend to do so, he breached his contract and it therefore ended.
He should know that Castleford may seek to gain financial recompense, which is what seems to be happening. Unfortunately, I suspect his agent failed to mention the fact Castleford may pursue him personally.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:44 pm  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

Because in this case, the ending is the breach. The day he didn't report to work and informed Castleford he did not intend to do so, he breached his contract and it therefore ended.
He should know that Castleford may seek to gain financial recompense, which is what seems to be happening. Unfortunately, I suspect his agent failed to mention the fact Castleford may pursue him personally.

The ending is not the breach, and nor is it reasonable to assume the breach is the ending.

The breach is not reporting to work. Not reporting to work whilst breaching the contract, does not end it. Solomona could turn up to work tomorrow and rightly assume that he could carry on with his contract (Cas could at anytime end that contract if they perceive his time spent AWOL to be gross misconduct, but would still need to follow the process for ending that contract as set down in it)

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:52 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

The ending is not the breach, and nor is it reasonable to assume the breach is the ending.

The breach is not reporting to work. Not reporting to work whilst breaching the contract, does not end it. Solomona could turn up to work tomorrow and rightly assume that he could carry on with his contract (Cas could at anytime end that contract if they perceive his time spent AWOL to be gross misconduct, but would still need to follow the process for ending that contract as set down in it)

I was thinking more of this case in particular, assuming what is suspected is true.
Given what we 'know', Solomona's contract did end when he failed to report for work and told Castleford he didn't intend to do so. He didn't consider himself to be employed by Castleford (and therefore his contract has ended) so there is no requirement for Castleford as the (previous) employer to follow any procedures at all because he is no longer an employee.

Put simply though, the fact seems to be that he has committed the repuditory breach of contract at some point. Castleford are entitled to seek compensation for their financial loss.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:15 pm  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

I was thinking more of this case in particular, assuming what is suspected is true.
Given what we 'know', Solomona's contract did end when he failed to report for work and told Castleford he didn't intend to do so. He didn't consider himself to be employed by Castleford (and therefore his contract has ended) so there is no requirement for Castleford as the (previous) employer to follow any procedures at all because he is no longer an employee.

Put simply though, the fact seems to be that he has committed the repuditory breach of contract at some point. Castleford are entitled to seek compensation for their financial loss.

We don't know Solomona's contract has ended at all. In fact, Cas are quite clearly and explicitly saying that the contract is still in place.

It does not follow that because Solomona no longer considered himself employed by Castleford Tigers that his contract has ended.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:34 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

We don't know Solomona's contract has ended at all. In fact, Cas are quite clearly and explicitly saying that the contract is still in place.

It does not follow that because Solomona no longer considered himself employed by Castleford Tigers that his contract has ended.

I'm not sure Castleford have said this since Solomona didn't report for the beginning of pre-season.
As you say though, we don't actually "know" much.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Tue Nov 29, 2016 3:05 am  

How do you calculate the consequential loss suffered by Cas?

Hopefully its more than the 40k a year they were allegedly paying him - no wonder he wanted off if that is true

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:26 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

How do you calculate the consequential loss suffered by Cas?

Hopefully its more than the 40k a year they were allegedly paying him - no wonder he wanted off if that is true

I would imagine it will be guided by:
The value of the three offers Castleford received and rejected.
The value of the "extra" salary Solomona earned after signing a contract extension, which enhanced his salary on the basis he would remain an employee for longer (up to the end of the 2018 season).
Loss of direct player sponsorship. Castleford had an agreement with a company to be the matchday sponsor for Solomona which will now be lost.
Given these, I imagine it will be 150-200k (as a guess).
Castleford are also likely to claim legal costs if they win.
I hope Solomona has a lot of money saved up, or he may find any increase in his salary is being paid to Castleford for the next couple of years.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:35 am  

Solomona is suspended for not turning up to pre-season training and is still a Castleford player.
The argument that he can just retire and take up union will be contested in court, Rugby League is not just another sport a precendent has been set with many examples of transfer fees been payed between union and league clubs in the past and with a £300,000 offer rejected a judge will decide whether Sale and Solomona are being underhanded.
They don't have to have done anything illegal by current law ,this is a test case backed by the RFL and quite frankly I would expect SKY would take a keen interest in this case too considering the implications to the sport that they have spent billions on securing the exclusive rights to.
Maybe Sale still think they are taking on little old Cas.