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

[Jimmy Skitz]

they have a playing contract, Tigers are not letting them train or play so no they can't

Refusing to allow them to train or play puts at jeopardy future earning capacity and future international caps and ancillary earnings related to playing, which are all clearly anticipated when the contracts were signed. It’s likely that the players can simply walk away as tigers have repudiated the contract; take another contract at the best available but much lower salary and simply sue Tigers for the balance. What Tigers seek to do is simply unacceptable legally, I.e to say we won’t let you play unless you agree to tear up your perfectly enforceable existing contract. It is perfectly moral in current circumstances but the Covid issue does not make existing contracts in any way unenforceable. Impecuniosity is no reason to avoid a contract.
The players have very very strong legal cases.
And I can say this with authority.

So you believe Tigers never sought and obtained full specialist
legal advice before they embarked upon this action I for one would be staggered if they did not.

given the way the club has been won for years I think it would be far from certain they have, they would also be hoping the players would take up the option to sign elsewhere, but should someone chose not to there isn't much the club can do but pay them

[Johnnyg]

they have a playing contract, Tigers are not letting them train or play so no they can't

Refusing to allow them to train or play puts at jeopardy future earning capacity and future international caps and ancillary earnings related to playing, which are all clearly anticipated when the contracts were signed. It’s likely that the players can simply walk away as tigers have repudiated the contract; take another contract at the best available but much lower salary and simply sue Tigers for the balance. What Tigers seek to do is simply unacceptable legally, I.e to say we won’t let you play unless you agree to tear up your perfectly enforceable existing contract. It is perfectly moral in current circumstances but the Covid issue does not make existing contracts in any way unenforceable. Impecuniosity is no reason to avoid a contract.
The players have very very strong legal cases.
And I can say this with authority.

So you believe Tigers never sought and obtained full specialist
legal advice before they embarked upon this action I for one would be staggered if they did not.

Of course they did. And I have no doubt the advice was sit down and negotiate fair amendments taking into account the undoubted change of circumstances financially. And they have sought to try and renegotiate the contracts by mutual consent. But just because no mutually acceptable outcome has been reached with a minority of players does not mean tigers can renege on their own obligations namely to facilitate a professional training regime and to allow these professional sportsmen to play rugby. Of course it’s.a mess and there are arguments on both sides but it is definitely not the case that Tigers are not going to end up paying the salaries over and above what the players can get from other clubs. I am sure all parties would rather agree a parting of the waves by consent now rather than embark on litigation with legal fees of £500k per side but trust me, Tigers’ case is not as strong as some believe.

[sapajo]

they have a playing contract, Tigers are not letting them train or play so no they can't

So they are not contractually required to do anything at all apart from training and play? So they visit folks in hospital, visit schools and grass roots clubs, community events,sponsors events, hospitality events, kit launches for free?

they may have hospitality clauses and PR clauses in their contract however why would the club put them forward when not allowing them to train or play

Because they can if they deem it fit.

[sam16111986]

Nothing? I am sure Tigers could legally put them to work off the pitch.

they have a playing contract, Tigers are not letting them train or play so no they can't

Refusing to allow them to train or play puts at jeopardy future earning capacity and future international caps and ancillary earnings related to playing, which are all clearly anticipated when the contracts were signed. It’s likely that the players can simply walk away as tigers have repudiated the contract; take another contract at the best available but much lower salary and simply sue Tigers for the balance. What Tigers seek to do is simply unacceptable legally, I.e to say we won’t let you play unless you agree to tear up your perfectly enforceable existing contract. It is perfectly moral in current circumstances but the Covid issue does not make existing contracts in any way unenforceable. Impecuniosity is no reason to avoid a contract.
The players have very very strong legal cases.
And I can say this with authority.

There is no requirement for them to play. They have been stood down temporarily and given Covid limits the number of players in each training session in sure the club can put something together to substantiate the temporary stand down. The problem will occur as you say of the players remain stood down over a longer period of time.

[Johnnyg]

they have a playing contract, Tigers are not letting them train or play so no they can't

Refusing to allow them to train or play puts at jeopardy future earning capacity and future international caps and ancillary earnings related to playing, which are all clearly anticipated when the contracts were signed. It’s likely that the players can simply walk away as tigers have repudiated the contract; take another contract at the best available but much lower salary and simply sue Tigers for the balance. What Tigers seek to do is simply unacceptable legally, I.e to say we won’t let you play unless you agree to tear up your perfectly enforceable existing contract. It is perfectly moral in current circumstances but the Covid issue does not make existing contracts in any way unenforceable. Impecuniosity is no reason to avoid a contract.
The players have very very strong legal cases.
And I can say this with authority.

There is no requirement for them to play. They have been stood down temporarily and given Covid limits the number of players in each training session in sure the club can put something together to substantiate the temporary stand down. The problem will occur as you say of the players remain stood down over a longer period of time.

There’s no requirement to let them play, the issue is whether withdrawing the opportunity to train and be selected is a breach of contract even where payment of salary is made in full. I think it is, especially in regard to players where they are prevented from accessing ancillary financial opportunities that were contemplated when the contract was entered into.

[TheTigerKing]

Refusing to allow them to train or play puts at jeopardy future earning capacity and future international caps and ancillary earnings related to playing, which are all clearly anticipated when the contracts were signed. It’s likely that the players can simply walk away as tigers have repudiated the contract; take another contract at the best available but much lower salary and simply sue Tigers for the balance. What Tigers seek to do is simply unacceptable legally, I.e to say we won’t let you play unless you agree to tear up your perfectly enforceable existing contract. It is perfectly moral in current circumstances but the Covid issue does not make existing contracts in any way unenforceable. Impecuniosity is no reason to avoid a contract.
The players have very very strong legal cases.
And I can say this with authority.

There is no requirement for them to play. They have been stood down temporarily and given Covid limits the number of players in each training session in sure the club can put something together to substantiate the temporary stand down. The problem will occur as you say of the players remain stood down over a longer period of time.

There’s no requirement to let them play, the issue is whether withdrawing the opportunity to train and be selected is a breach of contract even where payment of salary is made in full. I think it is, especially in regard to players where they are prevented from accessing ancillary financial opportunities that were contemplated when the contract was entered into.

I imagine they will be invited to train on their own/with the development squad.

They will be made as uncomfortable as possible.

[Scott1]

Have to say I've read about footballers being forced to train with the kids when things have gone sour and I don't recall one of them ever commencing legal action. Maybe the clubs in a stronger position then we though.

[BrightonTiger]

A number of the newspapers have made a big deal about players signing with another team for a lesser amount and Tigers being liable to to pay the rest.

Surely this would only work if they sign a 1 year contract with the new team?

If it is a 2 or 3 year contract, yes Tigers will have to top up for the first year but after that they will be on less than their market value.

A 1 year contract is very risky for players coming to the end of their careers, with previous injury problems.

[strawclearer]

He's not a Contracts Law specialist AFAIK but one would assume Jan McGinity has had significant input given his role and background. However, never underestimate Peter Tom's ability to ride roughshod over such things!

[TheTigerKing]

Have to say I've read about footballers being forced to train with the kids when things have gone sour and I don't recall one of them ever commencing legal action. Maybe the clubs in a stronger position then we though.

Id imagine the contracts must have clauses regarding selection and training as ever management sees fit.

If the call is that they will detract from the business of getting results then as long as they have a forum to practice and access to
Physio etc I can't see a legal issue.

[Jimmy Skitz]

Have to say I've read about footballers being forced to train with the kids when things have gone sour and I don't recall one of them ever commencing legal action. Maybe the clubs in a stronger position then we though.

they can't because they are still being allowed to train and use facilities

[RagingBull]

It's never as easy as the papers are making it out to be for getting damages for contract breaks. A lot of times the payout is "Nominal"

Most of what's been written in the press most likely has come from the same sports lawyer who is just trying to make something from it. Espcially in the rugby side of things where this doesn't happen often every wannabe sports lawyer will be updating their blog about it with little knowledge of what is in the contracts in the first place.

[fortysix]

Most contract disputes are pure bluster. And pure :censored:. Solicitors letters frighten most , but not others. It wouldnt take a rocket scientist to work out that FF wont want a protracted dispute with Tigers, and certainlt MT wont want that hanging over his head. No doubt, unless he says wallop to his England chances by signing for whichever Frog team that pays him the most, he will be back at Tigers next week.

[Leicestertinytiger]

It's never as easy as the papers are making it out to be for getting damages for contract breaks. A lot of times the payout is "Nominal"

Most of what's been written in the press most likely has come from the same sports lawyer who is just trying to make something from it. Espcially in the rugby side of things where this doesn't happen often every wannabe sports lawyer will be updating their blog about it with little knowledge of what is in the contracts in the first place.

Exactly that’s the best bit, until anyone has seen the contracts we have no idea what the terms are. There’s no way there won’t be various clauses that cover these sorts of things. Plus there will always be something in a players history you could probably terminate their contract for..... unfair? Probably but good luck taking that through the legal system, better just to move on.....

[Traveller]

It's never as easy as the papers are making it out to be for getting damages for contract breaks. A lot of times the payout is "Nominal"

Most of what's been written in the press most likely has come from the same sports lawyer who is just trying to make something from it. Espcially in the rugby side of things where this doesn't happen often every wannabe sports lawyer will be updating their blog about it with little knowledge of what is in the contracts in the first place.

Agreed. My experience of this stuff and I am not a lawyer, but I suspect like most contributors on here I've had experience of the law and employment issues over the years, is that the legal judgements is normally determined around the concept of 'reasonableness' and 'process'. Not the precise letter of a contract.

Did Tigers act reasonably? That is about acting in the greater good. In this case that is in ensuring that employees have jobs to go to in the future. If the board had done nothing, but tried to keep to the agreed contracts Tigers would go bust. Then there would be issues around any process, which is often where it does wrong. But if there is a force majeure clause in contracts (and it would be incredibly if there wasn't) then the impact of Covid would fall into that category.However I have no idea if professional sports contracts fall into some special category - and so fully accept what I've just written could be completely irrelevant in this context. In which case I apologise to y'all!!