Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:18 pm  

Tricky2309 wrote:

It couldn't happen in football as whilst there are different football federations, there is one world governing body.

The games of league and union are the same sport played to different rules and with different governing bodies. Given the similarities in the requirements to play the game of rugby be it league or union, I would have thought any court would give short shrift to breaking a contract in one code under the guise of retirement to take up a contract pretty much instantaneously in the other code

Are you suggesting that RL should take on the establishment, sorry Union.
Personally, although it would be right for RL to throw plenty at this one, usually legal battles are won by the side with the best lawyers and deepest pockets and we come second in both of these.
There are exceptions but, they are like rocking horse muck.

The best course of action would be to go after the player himself but, ultimately, if Sale ended up paying out his old contract at Cas, they would get a decent player for not too much cash.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:15 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Are you suggesting that RL should take on the establishment, sorry Union.
Personally, although it would be right for RL to throw plenty at this one, usually legal battles are won by the side with the best lawyers and deepest pockets and we come second in both of these.
There are exceptions but, they are like rocking horse muck.

The best course of action would be to go after the player himself but, ultimately, if Sale ended up paying out his old contract at Cas, they would get a decent player for not too much cash.

My two main points were you can't compare rugby with football and any court imo would disagree that you can retire from one code and play the other without breaching your employment contract

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:40 pm  

The term retirement would be seen by a court as a nonsense to avoid referring to breaking his contract. All you'd have to do is ask Solomona what he'd do if he was utter garbage in RU. The answer is his 'retirement' from RL would end in an instant.

Also, the RFL aren't targeting RU - they are targeting the player. The RFU/Sale would most likely not even be parties to any court case. I personally doubt the RFU or even Sale would want to win on the basis of Solomona being free to walk out of a contract, as it would mean all the contracts they and other clubs have with players are also worth nothing.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:15 am  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

Not quite.
Both clubs, through the RFL and RFU, are affiliated to the Court if Arbitration for Sport (ironically acronymised to CAS). It is this affiliation that stops sporting clubs from different countries and sports stealing each other's contracted players. If Castleford lodge a complaint with CAS a they can instruct the RFU not to register Solomona and prevent him registering for any other affiliated club.

From the employment point of view, Castleford would need to prove at an employment tribunal that:
a) Solomona is in breach of contract; and
b) Castleford have suffered a financial loss.
The first part of this should be quite straightforward on many counts. He hasn't turned up for work as stated in his contract. He's also posted images of himself seemingly in another workplace.
The second part of this is more difficult. However, given that Castleford have received three offers for Solomona, this goes some way to showing the extent of the financial loss the club has suffered if these are presented as evidence to an ET.

Unfortunately for Solomona, if he is found to be in breach of contract and the ET makes a judgement on financial loss, Denny Solomona is personally responsible for compensating Castleford to this amount. He might even be liable for Castleford's legal costs. My gut feeling is that he hasn't thought this through far enough to understand the consequences he could suffer if Castleford are determined enough to go after him.

I also question how determined Sale will be in this case. He's already a gamble on the playing front and not an established RU player. Are they willing to pay the necessary legal fees to represent him defending an ET claim, the legal fees to have representation at the CAS and his salary, given the possibility they may be prevented from registering him? If that financial outlay really worth it for a winger who has never played their game? If I were in Sale's shoes, I'd be thinking about walking away from Solomona.

Small point, if it was an employment tribunal, Solomona can't be held accountable for Castleford Tigers legal costs. The only way to claim costs over and above the loss directly attributed to the breach of contract is if the cause of the breach was discrimination.

There is also another point, you can get legal insurance as part of your house instance, which covers employment cases. So neither Solomona or Sale may need to pay any costs, other than an excess. Likewise, Castleford may be covered by similar insurance.

The likely course of event in my opinion is that it will go to ACAS and a COT3 settlement (non liability compensation which is held in confidence) will be issued. It won't make court.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:32 am  

mrpurfect wrote:

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.

The 'retire' argument would instantly fail anyway, he is before the legal retirement age. "Retirement" of sports players is really just a term used in media i.e. they are simply not taking up a further sports contract. They are actually not retiring in a legal sense.

The only way to leave a contract early from an employee point of view is to go for Constructive Dismissal;

Gov.uk website wrote:

Constructive dismissal
Constructive dismissal is when you’re forced to leave your job against your will because of your employer’s conduct.

The reasons you leave your job must be serious, for example, they:

don’t pay you or suddenly demote you for no reason
force you to accept unreasonable changes to how you work - eg tell you to work night shifts when your contract is only for day work
let other employees harass or bully you
Your employer’s breach of contract may be one serious incident or a series of incidents that are serious when taken together.

You should try and sort any issues out by speaking to your employer to solve the dispute.

Beyond that as far as I can tell, you would be responsible for any material losses (this need to be provable - you can't just say 3 years wages etc, which is VERY difficult). As per my previous post, they can't claim fees over the loss.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:15 am  

Bal wrote:

The 'retire' argument would instantly fail anyway, he is before the legal retirement age. "Retirement" of sports players is really just a term used in media i.e. they are simply not taking up a further sports contract. They are actually not retiring in a legal sense.

There is no "Legal Retirement Age" in the UK (with the exception of certain professions such as the fire service and armed forces), a person can retire at any age they choose, they just won't be eligible for a state provided pension until they reach a pensionable age (even then, people can continue to work and draw a pension)

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 01, 2016 10:43 am  

bentleberry wrote:

There is no "Legal Retirement Age" in the UK (with the exception of certain professions such as the fire service and armed forces), a person can retire at any age they choose, they just won't be eligible for a state provided pension until they reach a pensionable age (even then, people can continue to work and draw a pension)

Regardless. Solomona clearly isn't retired. He is seeking employment.

Solomona reminds me of Michael Scott in the American version of the office thinking he can just shout 'I declare bankruptcy' and all his debts disappear

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:27 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Regardless. Solomona clearly isn't retired. He is seeking employment.

Solomona reminds me of Michael Scott in the American version of the office thinking he can just shout 'I declare bankruptcy' and all his debts disappear

You can still seek employment following retirement. He has said he has retired from one sport, he then wants to look for employment in a different sport, you can even come back from retirement into the same sport (like Jamie Peacock did for HKR). If it goes to court then it's down to the judge to decide if union and league are effectively the same sport, but given the large difference in rules, separate governing bodies and time since the split I can't see that happening

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:21 pm  

bentleberry wrote:

You can still seek employment following retirement. He has said he has retired from one sport, he then wants to look for employment in a different sport, you can even come back from retirement into the same sport (like Jamie Peacock did for HKR). If it goes to court then it's down to the judge to decide if union and league are effectively the same sport, but given the large difference in rules, separate governing bodies and time since the split I can't see that happening

Retired from one particular job isn't a legal status.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 01, 2016 4:19 pm  

bentleberry wrote:

There is no "Legal Retirement Age" in the UK (with the exception of certain professions such as the fire service and armed forces), a person can retire at any age they choose, they just won't be eligible for a state provided pension until they reach a pensionable age (even then, people can continue to work and draw a pension)

You are right. There is no legal retirement age, I thought there was in all honesty but it's been withdrawn apparently, so my error. But that actually makes the argument that retirement can't be held as a legal status anyway. Making the claim even more unlikely to be held.

"Retirement" from a sport is just a turn of phrase, it makes no difference from a contractual point of view.

From what I have seen, I think it's a pretty clear cut breach of contract personally. If Castleford Tigers or the RFL can demonstrate losses though is another matter.