Re: Hoppy : Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:41 pm  

mish wrote: Here's a very interesting article about Kevin Larroyer who found himself in a very similar situation to Sam's. I think clubs have a duty of care to these players and should make it clear to them that if they lose the million pound game they won't be required so they should at least find themselves an agent and put their names around. It just seems cruel and unnecessary. http://www.totalrl.com/rugby-league-wor ... nightmare/ I have no doubts whatsoever that Sam will find himself a new club but it must be a shock to the system, especially when you've recently signed a new contract. It's a difficult one, because telling players they're out if we lose so start looking elsewhere isn't the best preparation for such a massive match. Players need to be getting better advice, it's naive to not realise contracts are voided after relegation, everybody knows that rule. Completing on a new house 2 days before such a game isn't the brightest idea. Similarly, Hopkins would have known there was a danger that the contract wouldn't be renewed in the championship. I don't think the issue here is with the club, they have to do what they think is right for the club, the issue is this rule that all contracts are null and void which is losing all stability for players and club. Its a rule designed to save clubs from themselves but is actually having the opposite effect. I wonder if he'd have been offered a new deal this year if such a rule wasn't in place?

mish wrote: Here's a very interesting article about Kevin Larroyer who found himself in a very similar situation to Sam's. I think clubs have a duty of care to these players and should make it clear to them that if they lose the million pound game they won't be required so they should at least find themselves an agent and put their names around. It just seems cruel and unnecessary. http://www.totalrl.com/rugby-league-wor ... nightmare/ I have no doubts whatsoever that Sam will find himself a new club but it must be a shock to the system, especially when you've recently signed a new contract. It's a difficult one, because telling players they're out if we lose so start looking elsewhere isn't the best preparation for such a massive match. Players need to be getting better advice, it's naive to not realise contracts are voided after relegation, everybody knows that rule. Completing on a new house 2 days before such a game isn't the brightest idea. Similarly, Hopkins would have known there was a danger that the contract wouldn't be renewed in the championship. I don't think the issue here is with the club, they have to do what they think is right for the club, the issue is this rule that all contracts are null and void which is losing all stability for players and club. Its a rule designed to save clubs from themselves but is actually having the opposite effect. I wonder if he'd have been offered a new deal this year if such a rule wasn't in place?

Re: Hoppy : Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:47 pm  

mish wrote:

I did say 'similar' - and this isn't a pop at Leigh or any other particular club. I'm just saying clubs in general should make it clear to all the players beforehand, how they see their future at the club in each scenario.

Players know SL contracts are void if relegated, after may1st any player out of contract can seek alternative employers for the following season, you can't wipe the heir arses as well. Common sense says if wanted they will be offered a contract, or vice versa.

[mish]

Re: Hoppy : Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:53 pm  

LeythIg wrote:

It's a difficult one, because telling players they're out if we lose so start looking elsewhere isn't the best preparation for such a massive match.

Players need to be getting better advice, it's naive to not realise contracts are voided after relegation, everybody knows that rule. Completing on a new house 2 days before such a game isn't the brightest idea. Similarly, Hopkins would have known there was a danger that the contract wouldn't be renewed in the championship.

I don't think the issue here is with the club, they have to do what they think is right for the club, the issue is this rule that all contracts are null and void which is losing all stability for players and club. Its a rule designed to save clubs from themselves but is actually having the opposite effect. I wonder if he'd have been offered a new deal this year if such a rule wasn't in place?

I've always been of the opinion that players should just have to deal with it and they know the consequences should they under perform etc but there's got to be a better way to help them - I mean, we all know how long it takes to complete on a house, how was he to know at the time of getting his mortgage that he would be in that situation by the time he was ready to complete? How are players meant to get mortgages and plan for the future if they don't know what next year will bring despite having contracts for x number of years (and more importantly, maybe banks will eventually stop giving mortgages to RL players because of this uncertainty?).

I don't know the answers but I wish there was another way.

Re: Hoppy : Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:59 pm  

mish wrote:

I've always been of the opinion that players should just have to deal with it and they know the consequences should they under perform etc but there's got to be a better way to help them - I mean, we all know how long it takes to complete on a house, how was he to know at the time of getting his mortgage that he would be in that situation by the time he was ready to complete? How are players meant to get mortgages and plan for the future if they don't know what next year will bring despite having contracts for x number of years (and more importantly, maybe banks will eventually stop giving mortgages to RL players because of this uncertainty?).

I don't know the answers but I wish there was another way.

Agree, there has to be another way. If relegation was based on league standings, it wouldn't be the slow, delayed death it is now. The black and white nature that the RFL void all contracts, also does more harm than good. Especially given clubs will still have to pay players for 3 months, without the funding so could go belly up anyway.

Re: Hoppy : Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:00 pm  

mish wrote:

I did say 'similar' - and this isn't a pop at Leigh or any other particular club. I'm just saying clubs in general should make it clear to all the players beforehand, how they see their future at the club in each scenario.

It is harsh yes but the realities of relegation really do hit home hard. To that extent there are support mechanisms available to young Sam for support , including from within our club.

I take on board your point, valid as it is but there are similar people going into work on Monday with no job security what so ever either, including 1,000 aircraft fitters at BAE.

I hope Sam get's fixed up asap.

Re: Hoppy : Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:03 pm  

My understanding is that the club's Welfare Officer (Steve Maden) will assist players who haven't got an agent, as will The RFL's own equivalent officer. I'm sure Sam will get a good SL contract elsewhere and I wish him luck.

Re: Hoppy : Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:09 am  

Has hoppy been told to find a new club or been told he's being offered less money and he's spit his dummy out and said no ???because the club has not said he's been released it's hoppy saying he has to find a new club and is that because he doesn't want to take a pay cut..

Re: Hoppy : Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:31 am  

Hoppy’s contract offer is more a reflection of his attitude to training. Turning up late for training and being one of the poorest trainers at the club hasn’t endeared him to the decision makers. He’s been given more than enough chances to change but hasn’t listened to the advice.

Re: Hoppy : Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:11 am  

gunners guns13 wrote:

Has hoppy been told to find a new club or been told he's being offered less money and he's spit his dummy out and said no ???because the club has not said he's been released it's hoppy saying he has to find a new club and is that because he doesn't want to take a pay cut..

It wouldn't be in the players interest,if the club announced he's been released. In that respect the club are protecting his interest and welfare.

Re: Hoppy : Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:12 pm  

atomic wrote:

It wouldn't be in the players interest,if the club announced he's been released. In that respect the club are protecting his interest and welfare.

what I'm saying is has the club offered him a contract and has hoppy turned it down because he wants more money ????