Past Rhan Hooper (2006-2009)

Remove this Banner Ad

notting18 said:
All depends on exactly what the terms of his (or the standard) playing contract are. AFLPA would've had a field day at our expense if we had sacked him IMO

I think the only way you can look at this is his contract was a failure, we should budget for paying him out in full and if we are able to successfully argue a smaller pay out it is a small win for us.
Click to expand...

They'd have a field day if we sacked him and didn't pay out his contract is what I assume you meant. The Lions are well within their rights to sack/delist/whatever him as long as they stand by their obligations. I don't think sacking someone necessarily means tearing up their contract???
 
Lehmo87 said:
They'd have a field day if we sacked him and didn't pay out his contract is what I assume you meant. The Lions are well within their rights to sack/delist/whatever him as long as they stand by their obligations. I don't think sacking someone necessarily means tearing up their contract???
Click to expand...

Yeah I should've used the "cancelled" term. It would've been interesting to see if we had the opportunity to tear up his employment contract as a result of him not turning up to work.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

According to this a player is not entitled to double dip, so if Hooper gets a new contract at another club, that figure would no longer be required to be paid by us. Presumably a new contract would be (significantly) less than what he was paid by us, therefore part b would be the relevant clause, meaning we would be obliged to pay the remainder of his contract less what he is being paid at his new club. So it would actually be in our interests for Hooper to be redrafted, and the more he is paid the better.

I'm not sure what specifically the dispute between Hooper and the Lions is about, so I don't know how that will affect the above.
 
Grimreepah said:
According to this a player is not entitled to double dip, so if Hooper gets a new contract at another club, that figure would no longer be required to be paid by us. Presumably a new contract would be (significantly) less than what he was paid by us, therefore part b would be the relevant clause, meaning we would be obliged to pay the remainder of his contract less what he is being paid at his new club. So it would actually be in our interests for Hooper to be redrafted, and the more he is paid the better.

I'm not sure what specifically the dispute between Hooper and the Lions is about, so I don't know how that will affect the above.
Click to expand...

The problem is that there is no incentive for Hooper to get a good deal. In fact, his management is probably selling him to other clubs on the basis that he will be free for the first year.
 
Hawks could swoop and draft disgruntled Hooper

HAWTHORN is considering taking the punt on former Brisbane Lion Rhan Hooper, with the 2008 premier contemplating selecting him in next week's national draft.

Hooper has been training with Richmond, which is weighing up whether it wants to pick the small forward, who remains in dispute with the Lions over his estimated $300,000-plus contract he was due to be paid in 2010 - the terms of which Brisbane argues the player breached.
Click to expand...
 
Bulldogs sniffing around ex-Lion Rhan Hooper

THE Western Bulldogs have emerged as a possible suitor for former Brisbane Lions speedster Rhan Hooper.
Bulldogs coach Rodney Eade met Hooper this week after it became apparent the 21-year-old could be a steal in Thursday's national draft, given he hasn't put a price on his head.

Hooper, who has also been courted by Hawthorn and Richmond, was surprisingly delisted by the Lions despite being under contract for $330,000 next year.

While he is in dispute with Brisbane over a payout, Hooper is expected to be compensated significantly, which means he has no problem in playing for the minimum wage next season at a new club.

Hooper has been training with Richmond for the past couple of weeks, although it's believed he failed to show for a session on Thursday.
Click to expand...
 
Tassie4ever said:
Without wishing to dump on a bloke who put in the occcasional good performance for us, if he was paid on performance he's be lining up at Centrelink tomorrow.

$330k- you're kidding!!
Click to expand...
Highly unfortunate that he was looking good at that contract signing time and Vic suitors pumped it up as well.I think most including myself were pretty happy we were able to keep him,even on that coin.One of those gambles that didn't work at all.
 
weevil said:
OMG that is insane.
Click to expand...

LoL no it's not.. it's hilarious. If he's hoping for more than a 1 year contract, on the presumption we end up having to pay the difference of what we were going to pay him next season, he's doing himself no favours.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

His non appearance could be numerous reasons, most likely either the Dogs or Hawks have committed to selecting him with a nominated pick on draft day. Hooper will be at a club next year but i am bloody glad he won't be with us on 300 plus a season, whoever came up with that contract should be sacked!
 
Haha that's funny. At the B&F I spoke to Hooper and told him not to run away during the pre season, and afterwards he got pissed off and didn't talk to me. He should've taken my advice, what a tool bag.
 
Lionheart182 said:
Hypothetically, if he doesn't get picked up by any club, do we still have to pay out his contract (as per how the agreement stands as of right now)?
Click to expand...

If it was a normal scenario, yes. We agreed to the contract with Hooper and we ended it unilaterally. However, it appears the club is arguing that Hooper disregarded the contract, etc and as a result he can't rely on it to force us to pay him.

We will see how it goes...
 
Lace Out said:
I read somewhere he got injured so this may be why "he failed to show".
Click to expand...

That's still not good enough at that level. All AFL clubs have rehab programs for injured players/players who have just had operations. If he was serious about playing footy again he would of showed IMO (though it could be that he just isn't serious about playing for Richmond).
 
One highly speculative statement in an article does not the truth make. We don't even know for sure if he was a no-show, and if he was, whether he had a valid reason.
 
I heard he missed the Thursday and Friday session at Richmond so they requested a sit down meeting with him and he hasn't missed a session since.

Also heard that because he is a contracted player,, if he doesn't get picked up in either drafts, then the Lions need to re-draft him as a mature age rookie. (Same with Cameron Cloke at Carlton)

(Although I'm sure we'd argue he's breached his contract anyway and try and get out of it)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Past Rhan Hooper (2006-2009)

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top