Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:16 pm  

mrpurfect wrote:

invmatt wrote:

No you're not.

And how would you know if Iam banned or not?

Because he runs the site

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:54 pm  

matt_casfan wrote:

Because he runs the site

I guessed that, but thats not answering my question, how would he know if I'm banned or not?

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:41 pm  

Both Kolpak and Bosman are eponymous for the rulings that significantly changed how sport players were "administered", after going through significant legal process.

Do you think that a "Solomona" will become another ground-breaking term in sporting history, or will be become known simply as "doing a Denny"?

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:11 pm  

mrpurfect wrote:

I guessed that, but thats not answering my question, how would he know if I'm banned or not?

Because out of the thousands of accounts the ban list is no bigger than 20 and most of them are old spam/troll accounts.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:58 pm  

invmatt wrote:

Because out of the thousands of accounts the ban list is no bigger than 20 and most of them are old spam/troll accounts.

So you don't know, your just being defensive of your forum when I didn't even criticise it which is the kind of attitude that gets you banned.

If you were really interested in finding out if I was Banned or not you would have asked what my username was.
Anyway this thread is about Solomona not Casforum.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:17 pm  

RFU happy to not get involved :

"The RFU say they respect RFL concerns regarding the "sanctity of contracts" but do not have jurisdiction to act.

"The employment status with a club in a different sport is a matter between that club and the player," a RFU spokesman told BBC Sport."

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:26 pm  

shinymcshine wrote:

RFU happy to not get involved :

"The RFU say they respect RFL concerns regarding the "sanctity of contracts" but do not have jurisdiction to act.

"The employment status with a club in a different sport is a matter between that club and the player," a RFU spokesman told BBC Sport."

They have clearly forgotten the precedents already set by SBW and Sam Burgess.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:27 pm  

The Devil's Advocate wrote:

He probably didn't tow the party line, or wasn't partisan enough, a lot like the Wakefield forum nowadays.

Why what party line is there on the Wakey forum? haven't been aware of one, or that it's really changed over the years. Still the same kinds of opinions going on whether they're negative or positive. For a change there's more positive than negative things to talk about.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:30 pm  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

They have clearly forgotten the precedents already set by SBW and Sam Burgess.

I'm not sure there's been a precedent exactly the same as the way Solomona's gone about things. I'd say the SBW incident is the closest to the Solomona one, even though both of those cases you mention were players moving from Australia to Europe, rather than English League Club to Union. With SBW when he did one to France, in the end Toulon just chucked the Bulldogs a load of cash to make the problem go away, I'd imagine that's what's gonna happen in this case, maybe not as much cash mind. Burgess is different he was given permission to leave Souths and try his hand at RU.

Re: Denny Solomona speculation & implications : Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:54 pm  

Shifty Cat wrote:

I'm not sure there's been a precedent exactly the same as the way Solomona's gone about things. I'd say the SBW incident is the closest to the Solomona one, even though both of those cases you mention were players moving from Australia to Europe, rather than English League Club to Union. With SBW when he did one to France, in the end Toulon just chucked the Bulldogs a load of cash to make the problem go away, I'd imagine that's what's gonna happen in this case, maybe not as much cash mind. Burgess is different he was given permission to leave Souths and try his hand at RU.

The RFU are essentially claiming there is no need for RU clubs to pay transfer fees to clubs from other sports, regardless of the country they are moving from/to.
Burgess was only given permission to try his hand at RU because Bath paid Souths £270k. He wasn't allowed just to walk off into the sunset.
Likewise, Toulon paid a significant sum for Williams (eventually).
Therefore, the precedent of RU clubs paying transfer fees to RL clubs for players under contract is set.