LEICESTER TIGERS 2020/21 SQUAD/TRANSFERS/CONTRACT THREAD Part 2

[Scott1]

Didnt I read somewhere that Jones has flew back to England to try and personally sort the Manu situation out? Maybe he can knock some sense in to him! Lets say hes on 500k. That would be 375k after the cut with the opportunity of around 200k to be earned playing for England as well as the potential Lions sponsors that will be all over him like a rash. Couple that with hardly playing for 4 years and the club standing by him through thick and thin and he still wants to go?! Very,very disappointed in him!

[Scuttle]

If Tigers unilaterally terminated Tuilagi's contract for no good reason and he was only able to get a contract at another club on a lower wage, he could well be entitled to claim the difference as compensation for damages arising from breach of contract.

However, I don't think that is the situation. I understand he is still employed and I assume is still being paid. I can only think he is still being paid in full because otherwise he could claim breach of contract and sue for the full amount for the remainder of his contract. If those assumptions are correct, he cannot join another club without himself breaching contract - he would have to ask to be released, hence mutual agreement, hence no possibility of Tigers having to pay the difference.

If he could argue constructive dismissal then that would be different, but as trendylfj pointed out that is very unlikely. Being paid your full salary in return for doing zero work would probably not be seen as enough to give you no option but to quit. On reflection I strongly agree. Surely one of the foundations of any professional sports contract is that the club decides who plays and who doesn't - no judge is going to rule that failure to select a player constitutes constructive dismissal, that would set a terrifying precedent.

The problem is, he could sit at home, do nothing, and receive his full salary (although if he's not playing for Tigers, he is unlikely to get in the England squad and earn his match fees). Tigers have to pay him and it still counts towards the cap. No one wins in that situation, but if he is really that bitter then perhaps he is willing to cut off his nose to spite his face.


As for clubs agreeing not to sign players in this situation:

a) prove it.
b) if you can, the clubs may lose the case and be fined, but there's no way the court will force a club to employ anyone so the player still loses out. Plus that case takes a couple of years, by which point if the clubs are still in business then they've succeeded. Better to stay afloat and maybe pay a fine in 2 years time than go under now.

Maybe the heat and light we are seeing from a couple of them is because their agents have tested out a few other Prem clubs and have had no takers. They called the club's bluff thinking they would have options,Tigers didn't take it and now they find options are much more limited. That might make them grumpy and respond as seen. Poirot would love working this one out.

[Dangerous4]

Could I just ask those posters who are constantly criticising the club for the way they have handled this to explain what they would like to have happened instead? I would be interested in hearing an alternative approach.

Playing it out in the press is not great but it has been determined that this wasn’t the club, so how would those criticising the approach have looked to repair the damage of losing £5 million and counting?

Anybody.........?

Don't quote a list of 5 players leaving if the list actually has 6 on it.

Especially not if the 6th is your marquee player.

And if it's still unconfirmed because of reasons, that's fine, just tell us it's unconfirmed.

wELL SAID.

[ads]

Poirot would love working this one out.

[Mark62]

If Tigers unilaterally terminated Tuilagi's contract for no good reason and he was only able to get a contract at another club on a lower wage, he could well be entitled to claim the difference as compensation for damages arising from breach of contract.

However, I don't think that is the situation. I understand he is still employed and I assume is still being paid. I can only think he is still being paid in full because otherwise he could claim breach of contract and sue for the full amount for the remainder of his contract. If those assumptions are correct, he cannot join another club without himself breaching contract - he would have to ask to be released, hence mutual agreement, hence no possibility of Tigers having to pay the difference.

If he could argue constructive dismissal then that would be different, but as trendylfj pointed out that is very unlikely. Being paid your full salary in return for doing zero work would probably not be seen as enough to give you no option but to quit. On reflection I strongly agree. Surely one of the foundations of any professional sports contract is that the club decides who plays and who doesn't - no judge is going to rule that failure to select a player constitutes constructive dismissal, that would set a terrifying precedent.

The problem is, he could sit at home, do nothing, and receive his full salary (although if he's not playing for Tigers, he is unlikely to get in the England squad and earn his match fees). Tigers have to pay him and it still counts towards the cap. No one wins in that situation, but if he is really that bitter then perhaps he is willing to cut off his nose to spite his face.


As for clubs agreeing not to sign players in this situation:

a) prove it.
b) if you can, the clubs may lose the case and be fined, but there's no way the court will force a club to employ anyone so the player still loses out. Plus that case takes a couple of years, by which point if the clubs are still in business then they've succeeded. Better to stay afloat and maybe pay a fine in 2 years time than go under now.

Maybe the heat and light we are seeing from a couple of them is because their agents have tested out a few other Prem clubs and have had no takers. They called the club's bluff thinking they would have options,Tigers didn't take it and now they find options are much more limited. That might make them grumpy and respond as seen. Poirot would love working this one out.

Calls for Sir Harry and the spooks in my book
Lot of sense in what you say, come on Tigers you’ve always moved before, what do you mean you’re not moving this time.
Oh dear that leaves us up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

[Scuttle]

Poirot would love working this one out.

That is what you call a double entendre

[rdracup]

If Tigers unilaterally terminated Tuilagi's contract for no good reason and he was only able to get a contract at another club on a lower wage, he could well be entitled to claim the difference as compensation for damages arising from breach of contract.

However, I don't think that is the situation. I understand he is still employed and I assume is still being paid. I can only think he is still being paid in full because otherwise he could claim breach of contract and sue for the full amount for the remainder of his contract. If those assumptions are correct, he cannot join another club without himself breaching contract - he would have to ask to be released, hence mutual agreement, hence no possibility of Tigers having to pay the difference.

If he could argue constructive dismissal then that would be different, but as trendylfj pointed out that is very unlikely. Being paid your full salary in return for doing zero work would probably not be seen as enough to give you no option but to quit. On reflection I strongly agree. Surely one of the foundations of any professional sports contract is that the club decides who plays and who doesn't - no judge is going to rule that failure to select a player constitutes constructive dismissal, that would set a terrifying precedent.

The problem is, he could sit at home, do nothing, and receive his full salary (although if he's not playing for Tigers, he is unlikely to get in the England squad and earn his match fees). Tigers have to pay him and it still counts towards the cap. No one wins in that situation, but if he is really that bitter then perhaps he is willing to cut off his nose to spite his face.


As for clubs agreeing not to sign players in this situation:

a) prove it.
b) if you can, the clubs may lose the case and be fined, but there's no way the court will force a club to employ anyone so the player still loses out. Plus that case takes a couple of years, by which point if the clubs are still in business then they've succeeded. Better to stay afloat and maybe pay a fine in 2 years time than go under now.

Maybe the heat and light we are seeing from a couple of them is because their agents have tested out a few other Prem clubs and have had no takers. They called the club's bluff thinking they would have options,Tigers didn't take it and now they find options are much more limited. That might make them grumpy and respond as seen. Poirot would love working this one out.

Not so sure that we can rule out a case of constructive dismissal-we can pay him to sit at home but he misses out on other commercial earnings and opportunities and most probably England caps and his skills become more limited through lack of use, forcing him to move on. That said the rugby world generally would take a very dim view of such a high profile player suing his club for constructive dismissal in the middle of a rugby funding crisis and it is not a clear cut case anyway. Best that both sides negotiate behind closed doors - no leaks from club, player or AGENT (sorry caps got stuck there) until deal done.

[kend]

I understand he is still employed and I assume is still being paid.

I thought the club had issued statements to the press saying the 5 (or is it 6?) players have 'left the club'. If so surely they can't still be under contract and paid? It would be some 'gardening leave' package if they were: presumably they have flown to Greece via Bulgaria and are negotiating new clubs from the beach.......

[kk20gb30]

The Telegraph online report that Veainu on the verge of joining Stade Francais.
Nothing confirmed.

[Jimmy Skitz]

As for clubs agreeing not to sign players in this situation:

a) prove it.
b) if you can, the clubs may lose the case and be fined, but there's no way the court will force a club to employ anyone so the player still loses out. Plus that case takes a couple of years, by which point if the clubs are still in business then they've succeeded. Better to stay afloat and maybe pay a fine in 2 years time than go under now.

it may not force clubs to sign players but it would be the first step to the rule about internationals having to play in England being declared illegal, Manu, for example could sue the RFU as none of the Premiership clubs were willing to make a legitimate offer as they had an illegal pact meaning he had to go to France to get a deal commensurate with the one Tigers are trying to get out of now.

Personally I see no reason why England players cannot play in France or the Pro 12, just make sure you have a clause in your contract saying you must be released for all England activities but that's another issue.

[kpj tiger]

The Telegraph online report that Veainu on the verge of joining Stade Francais.
Nothing confirmed.

He'd suit Stade perfectly

[Jimmy Skitz]

I understand he is still employed and I assume is still being paid.

I thought the club had issued statements to the press saying the 5 (or is it 6?) players have 'left the club'. If so surely they can't still be under contract and paid? It would be some 'gardening leave' package if they were: presumably they have flown to Greece via Bulgaria and are negotiating new clubs from the beach.......

unless the club have paid up their contracts, which they cannot afford to or we wouldn't be talking pay cuts, the players are still under contract until they find a new club, if they do, unless the players are sacked for disciplinary reasons

[Robespierre]

I wonder if Tuilagi is in line to replace the retiring Brad Barritt?

[Tiglon]

I understand he is still employed and I assume is still being paid.

I thought the club had issued statements to the press saying the 5 (or is it 6?) players have 'left the club'. If so surely they can't still be under contract and paid? It would be some 'gardening leave' package if they were: presumably they have flown to Greece via Bulgaria and are negotiating new clubs from the beach.......

unless the club have paid up their contracts, which they cannot afford to or we wouldn't be talking pay cuts, the players are still under contract until they find a new club, if they do, unless the players are sacked for disciplinary reasons

They could have simply terminated the contracts and paid nothing, leaving the players the option of legal action - the gamble would be that by the time the players had got new contracts elsewhere, the loss of earnings that would need to be compensated for would be relatively low. In that scenario the player could probably claim for the difference between new contract and old Tigers contract, which is why it seems unlikely Tigers would have chosen that route.

[ay2oh]

Over the past 4-5 seasons I would be surprised if Manu has averaged more than 10 games a season for Tigers which equates to £45k per game. IMO we would be far better served in recruiting a centre with no international commitments so that we are able to develop a game plan which does not solely involve using crash ball tactics at the expense of exploiting gaps behind opposing defences.