TeflonTed wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:48 am
g2forumsm wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:17 am
poyntonshark wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:55 am
If the new club has agreed that the player may begin training with them, then they are very obviously "liable".
I would have thought it would need to be legally agreed between the parties
I agree. In the case of legal agreements it would be clear. Informal agreements have a nasty habit of becoming informal disagreements the moment anything goes wrong.
Formal agreements have at least an equal propensity for becoming formal disagreements, hence "Contracts not worth the paper they are written on".
All contract clauses and application must be 'reasonable'. A Club allowing a player they are transferring in to begin training a week or two before his official contracted start date would reasonably be described as the club employing him. (unless of course there is a formal agreement to the contrary). All that said, of course, formal agreements between all parties would be the most agreeable situation.
Edited to add. Just reading further information on the sorry case of Janse Van Rensberg, Sale, Gloucester and The Lions. This little tidbit of information popped up -
"In any event, the Panel pointed to RFU Regulation 1 which, for the purposes of its Regulations, defined “contract” as:
any agreement, arrangements or understanding whether formal or informal and technically whether legally enforceable or not"
It's not specifically related to his matter, but this sad case does bring up many issues regarding contracts, it's not light reading but you may be interested -
Tapping Up in Rugby