Re: Michael Dobson : Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:59 am  

HOMER2355 wrote: Correct INcorrect: http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... ticle.html But that has placed a question mark over the future of the injured Dobson, with the RFL yesterday claiming he was a "free agent" because his contract had been terminated by Rovers. Whilst the RFL insist the Aussie play-maker's contract situation remains unchanged, they have moved to clarify their stance on the issue. In a statement issued today, the RFL said: "Michael Dobson's contract was terminated on Thursday March 10 and Willie Mason's registration was accepted.

HOMER2355 wrote: Correct INcorrect: http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... ticle.html But that has placed a question mark over the future of the injured Dobson, with the RFL yesterday claiming he was a "free agent" because his contract had been terminated by Rovers. Whilst the RFL insist the Aussie play-maker's contract situation remains unchanged, they have moved to clarify their stance on the issue. In a statement issued today, the RFL said: "Michael Dobson's contract was terminated on Thursday March 10 and Willie Mason's registration was accepted.

Re: Michael Dobson : Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:23 pm  

As FTV says on the other thread, what the rfl say and what is legal can be very different

Re: Michael Dobson : Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:53 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

As FTV says on the other thread, what the rfl say and what is legal can be very different

No, the RFL have said his playing contract has been cancelled meaning he has been de-registered and has been placed on their free agent register. Maybe Hull KR have entered into some other arrangement with him where he promises not to sign for someone else but that doesn't mean his original contract hasn't been cancelled.

Re: Michael Dobson : Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:55 pm  

SEB wrote:

No, the RFL have said his playing contract has been cancelled meaning he has been de-registered and has been placed on their free agent register. Maybe Hull KR have entered into some other arrangement with him where he promises not to sign for someone else but that doesn't mean his original contract hasn't been cancelled.

And again to repeat what FTV said, thats what bradford thought with Harris and that panned out really well for them didnt it?

Re: Michael Dobson : Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:21 pm  

SEB wrote: INcorrect: http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... ticle.html nope that is incorrect. The player remains a contracted employee of Hull Kingston Rovers. he is at the moment therefore unregistered to play, so effectively another club could seek to register him as a player however, because he is contracted to rovers they would have to seek rovers permission, which would they would refuse!

SEB wrote: INcorrect: http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... ticle.html nope that is incorrect. The player remains a contracted employee of Hull Kingston Rovers. he is at the moment therefore unregistered to play, so effectively another club could seek to register him as a player however, because he is contracted to rovers they would have to seek rovers permission, which would they would refuse!

Re: Michael Dobson : Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:30 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

And again to repeat what FTV said, thats what bradford thought with Harris and that panned out really well for them didnt it?

This is slightly different, as i recall it.

As part of the agreement to let harris go before his contract was up Leeds agreed to cancel harris contract, yet retained his registration with the rugby league.

Harris after a few years in the union, and the bulls argued that because his contract was terminated they weren't allowed to retain his playing registration, and they were wrong.

A players registration and contract are 2 different things.

With dobson you have a player who is no longer registered (so rovers dont hold his playing registration), however they have a contract with him. so for someone to register him they would have to seek rovers permission or buy his contract out.

Re: Michael Dobson : Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:41 pm  

HOMER2355 wrote:

nope that is incorrect. The player remains a contracted employee of Hull Kingston Rovers.

he is at the moment therefore unregistered to play, so effectively another club could seek to register him as a player however, because he is contracted to rovers they would have to seek rovers permission, which would they would refuse!

If you know what you have written to be true, please back up with links and quotes proving it. I've read the rules several times and read several quotes backing up what I've said, not what you say. The rules are quite clear that in order to remove a player from the register, their contract must be terminated.

Re: Michael Dobson : Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:52 pm  

HOMER2355 wrote:

This is slightly different, as i recall it.

As part of the agreement to let harris go before his contract was up Leeds agreed to cancel harris contract, yet retained his registration with the rugby league.

Harris after a few years in the union, and the bulls argued that because his contract was terminated they weren't allowed to retain his playing registration, and they were wrong.

A players registration and contract are 2 different things.

With dobson you have a player who is no longer registered (so rovers dont hold his playing registration), however they have a contract with him. so for someone to register him they would have to seek rovers permission or buy his contract out.

So saints could in theory register him and he wouldn't be able to play for Rovers.

If true i think the other teams should do a whip round and buy his registration and not let Rovers play him. That is what you are saying regards the Harris situation?

Re: Michael Dobson : Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:22 pm  

jdrocket wrote:

So saints could in theory register him and he wouldn't be able to play for Rovers.

If true i think the other teams should do a whip round and buy his registration and not let Rovers play him. That is what you are saying regards the Harris situation?

Saints could only register him with the permission of HKR, as he is still an employee of HKR.

Re: Michael Dobson : Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:37 pm  

HOMER2355 wrote:

Saints could only register him with the permission of HKR, as he is still an employee of HKR.

Saints could only register him with the permission of the RFL, HKR stopped having anything to do with that once they de registered him. Registrations are held by the RFL, not the clubs. That's why the RFL say he could sign for anyone else.

HKR may well then take him to court in regard to the playing contract he signed, but if Masons Tongan passport does not come through, or the RFL refuse to take him off the quota given this blatent attempt to get round the rules then I suppose Dobson could take HKR to court for restriction of trade or something similar. More likely they will terminate his contract and save on cap space and he'll sign elsewhere if that happens.