Hardaker
Re: Hardaker
But surely 5 star comercial cleaning is a sponsor havnt we got there name between the shoulder blades of the new shirt ? Maybe hes allowed to work there till hes actually banned
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi
Vince Lombardi
Re: Hardaker
If those are the rules, as quoted, there is no reference to either employment or payment. It says 'participate'. If it meant a player cannot be employed or paid then surely it would say that. Using the word participate suggests something else.nottinghamtiger wrote:Absolutely not. WADA have very stringent rules that suspended players and clubs have to adhere to, and not doing so can have very serious consequences for both. Just to recap the rules:derbystiger wrote:There are ways around anything as far as hiding numbers are concerned. Perez could employ him privately as his cleaner at homenottinghamtiger wrote:I don’t think he could be paid by anyone.
During the ban, I don’t believe he can be employed by a club. Paying him immediately makes him an employee, even if the payment is only considered as some kind of ‘retainer’.
No club would be daft enough to risk non-compliance with a WADA ruling.
“During a period of Ineligibility individuals shall not be permitted to participate in any capacity in a Competition, Event or other activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or rehabilitation programmes) organised, convened or authorised by:
• the RFL or any body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by the RFL;
• any Signatory;
• any club or other body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by, a Signatory or a
Signatory’s member organisation;
• any professional league or any international or national-level Event organisation; or
• any elite or national-level sporting activity funded by a governmental agency.”
He can’t be employed by anyone directly associated with any club that is a member of the RFL, nor and organisation affiliated to any club.
The word ‘affiliated’ is a bit murky, but I think a club would be making a big mistake if he worked for a sponsor too. They are deemed to be affiliates for salary-cap purposes (although they are RFL regulations rather than WADA ones) and sponsors cannot make direct payments to players (as Salford found out in the case with Tony Puletua). It woud be hard to argue that a company that provides sponsorship to a club is not ‘affiliated’ to the club simply through the commercial agreement between them. It would also be hard to argue that the club had not “organised, convened or authorised” this to happen.
If he’s banned, WADA have more or less made sure he cannot he paid by any organition, or one of their affiliates, during his suspension.
It would be a massive risk for any club to even try it. WADA have the power to ban nations from competitions. To them a rugby league club is small fry.
-
- League One Player
- Posts: 2986
- Joined: 21 Dec 2014, 00:40
- Contact:
Re: Hardaker
Quote all the stuff you like, but over in the real world if someone with the money/lawyers etc.. that somebody like Perez has wants to get around legal jargon (for want of a better word) then he will. Wouldn't take much for someone like him to set up a new company without him being listed as a director, loan them some money and then for them to employ ZH. We aren't talking criminal activities here, we are talking about something as simple as finding someone a job in a company not associated with a sports club. If someone like Perez wanted to make it happen and fund it without breaking any of the rules he could.nottinghamtiger wrote:Absolutely not. WADA have very stringent rules that suspended players and clubs have to adhere to, and not doing so can have very serious consequences for both. Just to recap the rules:derbystiger wrote:There are ways around anything as far as hiding numbers are concerned. Perez could employ him privately as his cleaner at homenottinghamtiger wrote:I don’t think he could be paid by anyone.
During the ban, I don’t believe he can be employed by a club. Paying him immediately makes him an employee, even if the payment is only considered as some kind of ‘retainer’.
No club would be daft enough to risk non-compliance with a WADA ruling.
“During a period of Ineligibility individuals shall not be permitted to participate in any capacity in a Competition, Event or other activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or rehabilitation programmes) organised, convened or authorised by:
• the RFL or any body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by the RFL;
• any Signatory;
• any club or other body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by, a Signatory or a
Signatory’s member organisation;
• any professional league or any international or national-level Event organisation; or
• any elite or national-level sporting activity funded by a governmental agency.”
He can’t be employed by anyone directly associated with any club that is a member of the RFL, nor and organisation affiliated to any club.
The word ‘affiliated’ is a bit murky, but I think a club would be making a big mistake if he worked for a sponsor too. They are deemed to be affiliates for salary-cap purposes (although they are RFL regulations rather than WADA ones) and sponsors cannot make direct payments to players (as Salford found out in the case with Tony Puletua). It woud be hard to argue that a company that provides sponsorship to a club is not ‘affiliated’ to the club simply through the commercial agreement between them. It would also be hard to argue that the club had not “organised, convened or authorised” this to happen.
If he’s banned, WADA have more or less made sure he cannot he paid by any organition, or one of their affiliates, during his suspension.
It would be a massive risk for any club to even try it. WADA have the power to ban nations from competitions. To them a rugby league club is small fry.
-
- Championship Player
- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
- Contact:
Re: Hardaker
Good point. Though I would think (and I might be wrong) that being employed by a club would be deemed as participating in some capacity to activities at the employing club. Employment and participation are generally inextricably linked!Nu Shooze wrote:If those are the rules, as quoted, there is no reference to either employment or payment. It says 'participate'. If it meant a player cannot be employed or paid then surely it would say that. Using the word participate suggests something else.nottinghamtiger wrote:Absolutely not. WADA have very stringent rules that suspended players and clubs have to adhere to, and not doing so can have very serious consequences for both. Just to recap the rules:derbystiger wrote:There are ways around anything as far as hiding numbers are concerned. Perez could employ him privately as his cleaner at homenottinghamtiger wrote:I don’t think he could be paid by anyone.
During the ban, I don’t believe he can be employed by a club. Paying him immediately makes him an employee, even if the payment is only considered as some kind of ‘retainer’.
No club would be daft enough to risk non-compliance with a WADA ruling.
“During a period of Ineligibility individuals shall not be permitted to participate in any capacity in a Competition, Event or other activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or rehabilitation programmes) organised, convened or authorised by:
• the RFL or any body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by the RFL;
• any Signatory;
• any club or other body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by, a Signatory or a
Signatory’s member organisation;
• any professional league or any international or national-level Event organisation; or
• any elite or national-level sporting activity funded by a governmental agency.”
He can’t be employed by anyone directly associated with any club that is a member of the RFL, nor and organisation affiliated to any club.
The word ‘affiliated’ is a bit murky, but I think a club would be making a big mistake if he worked for a sponsor too. They are deemed to be affiliates for salary-cap purposes (although they are RFL regulations rather than WADA ones) and sponsors cannot make direct payments to players (as Salford found out in the case with Tony Puletua). It woud be hard to argue that a company that provides sponsorship to a club is not ‘affiliated’ to the club simply through the commercial agreement between them. It would also be hard to argue that the club had not “organised, convened or authorised” this to happen.
If he’s banned, WADA have more or less made sure he cannot he paid by any organition, or one of their affiliates, during his suspension.
It would be a massive risk for any club to even try it. WADA have the power to ban nations from competitions. To them a rugby league club is small fry.
There may be some more detailed regulations etc online, but I can’t imagine any club even risking breaking the rules and trying to argue a technicality with WADA.
I’m also not sure what Cas would gain here. I assume, as with most sports contracts, that there is a clause that he remains under contract but unpaid during any WADA suspension. As such, we lose nothing by retaining his registration until his ban is complete as we won’t be paying him. When his ban ends he will still be under contract with us and then we can decide what to do with him.
-
- Championship Player
- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
- Contact:
Re: Hardaker
Of course, you are absolutely right. WADA cannot force a player or company to hand over financial information so nobody would ever know.derbystiger wrote:Quote all the stuff you like, but over in the real world if someone with the money/lawyers etc.. that somebody like Perez has wants to get around legal jargon (for want of a better word) then he will. Wouldn't take much for someone like him to set up a new company without him being listed as a director, loan them some money and then for them to employ ZH. We aren't talking criminal activities here, we are talking about something as simple as finding someone a job in a company not associated with a sports club. If someone like Perez wanted to make it happen and fund it without breaking any of the rules he could.nottinghamtiger wrote:Absolutely not. WADA have very stringent rules that suspended players and clubs have to adhere to, and not doing so can have very serious consequences for both. Just to recap the rules:derbystiger wrote:There are ways around anything as far as hiding numbers are concerned. Perez could employ him privately as his cleaner at homenottinghamtiger wrote:I don’t think he could be paid by anyone.
During the ban, I don’t believe he can be employed by a club. Paying him immediately makes him an employee, even if the payment is only considered as some kind of ‘retainer’.
No club would be daft enough to risk non-compliance with a WADA ruling.
“During a period of Ineligibility individuals shall not be permitted to participate in any capacity in a Competition, Event or other activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or rehabilitation programmes) organised, convened or authorised by:
• the RFL or any body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by the RFL;
• any Signatory;
• any club or other body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by, a Signatory or a
Signatory’s member organisation;
• any professional league or any international or national-level Event organisation; or
• any elite or national-level sporting activity funded by a governmental agency.”
He can’t be employed by anyone directly associated with any club that is a member of the RFL, nor and organisation affiliated to any club.
The word ‘affiliated’ is a bit murky, but I think a club would be making a big mistake if he worked for a sponsor too. They are deemed to be affiliates for salary-cap purposes (although they are RFL regulations rather than WADA ones) and sponsors cannot make direct payments to players (as Salford found out in the case with Tony Puletua). It woud be hard to argue that a company that provides sponsorship to a club is not ‘affiliated’ to the club simply through the commercial agreement between them. It would also be hard to argue that the club had not “organised, convened or authorised” this to happen.
If he’s banned, WADA have more or less made sure he cannot he paid by any organition, or one of their affiliates, during his suspension.
It would be a massive risk for any club to even try it. WADA have the power to ban nations from competitions. To them a rugby league club is small fry.
However, the problem with collusion is that it relies on all parties keeping the secret forever. As soon as things don’t go the player’s way, out pops the truth. It would be a massive risk.
It’s exactly the same as the Salford/Tony Puletua scenario. Nobody would ever have know that another company owned by Koukash was paying him extra money. Until Koukash and Puletua fell out and Puletua decided to expose what had happened. In that case, it was only RFL rules that were broken. In this case, it could be WADA rules and the consequences would be massive for the club concerned.
I find it odd that some people think it’s really that simple to pull the wool over the eyes of WADA. They are a massive organisation with more money (and investigators, lawyers etc) than any club in any sport (almost) and most governing bodies! They also have serious bite. We aren’t talking about points deductions here, but the power to literally ban a club from competition entirely.
Re: Hardaker
Hardly collusion here he had his picture taken at the xmas works do ! ha
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi
Vince Lombardi
-
- League One Player
- Posts: 2986
- Joined: 21 Dec 2014, 00:40
- Contact:
Re: Hardaker
tigerfeat wrote:Hardly collusion here he had his picture taken at the xmas works do ! ha
-
- Championship Player
- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
- Contact:
Re: Hardaker
Not banned yet though!tigerfeat wrote:Hardly collusion here he had his picture taken at the xmas works do ! ha
-
- League One Player
- Posts: 4033
- Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 22:26
- Location: NORMANTON-BUT CLOSER TO CAS THAN WAKEY BAD LANDS
- Contact:
Re: Hardaker
wish they would get it sorted out soon and stop all this waiting and messing about
- mart0042
- Championship Player
- Posts: 6355
- Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
- Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....
- Contact:
Re: Hardaker
Then we will be releasing him from his contract, either for a fee or not.derbystiger wrote:Unless we have given him permission to speak to other people?mart0042 wrote:Unless we sack him or release him, he isn't open to anything. He's a Cas employee.Tigerade wrote:Agreed - If Perez wants to part with some serious cash we should take it. Of course Zak would have to want to go to Toronto but from what I have heard he is open to offers.
I just hope we find out what is gale of and then we can plan and move on. Until then we are stuck
- Tigerade
- League One Player
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: 11 Dec 2014, 13:18
- Location: Larging it in Lagentium
- Contact:
Re: Hardaker
I have now heard that a deal has been struck with Toronto. I wonder if the 3 players released (Bailey, Moi Moi and Taylor) have freed up the cash for Zak ?
Re: Hardaker
Don't believe it one bit. If you knew why they'd sacked the other 3 I doubt they'd try to sign Zak.
what doesn't kill me simply makes me...stranger.
-
old cas lass Verified
- Grand Final Winner
- Posts: 23239
- Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 14:29
- Contact:
Re: Hardaker
Won't zak be banned from all sports.
So why would Toronto set him on when he may not play for 2yrs.
So why would Toronto set him on when he may not play for 2yrs.
Re: Hardaker
He will be banned from all sports worldwide for 2yrs so i doubt that will have happened.Tigerade wrote:I have now heard that a deal has been struck with Toronto. I wonder if the 3 players released (Bailey, Moi Moi and Taylor) have freed up the cash for Zak ?
They will have a fee to pay Cas and maybe his wages for 2yrs before he can even pull on a shirt in training.
Re: Hardaker
i dont think shortage of cash is a problem for toronto, they will pay him while hes sat on his arse for two yearsTigerade wrote:I have now heard that a deal has been struck with Toronto. I wonder if the 3 players released (Bailey, Moi Moi and Taylor) have freed up the cash for Zak ?
ive heard he could go there too
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi
Vince Lombardi
Re: Hardaker
Didn't they let hock train with Wigan for a few months before his ban ended,if so surely that would apply to anyone else.fords wrote:He will be banned from all sports worldwide for 2yrs so i doubt that will have happened.Tigerade wrote:I have now heard that a deal has been struck with Toronto. I wonder if the 3 players released (Bailey, Moi Moi and Taylor) have freed up the cash for Zak ?
They will have a fee to pay Cas and maybe his wages for 2yrs before he can even pull on a shirt in training.
Re: Hardaker
Yep so he will be able to train for a couple of months so he can play for us in the grand final 2019 :dance:Oldcasman wrote:Didn't they let hock train with Wigan for a few months before his ban ended,if so surely that would apply to anyone else.fords wrote:He will be banned from all sports worldwide for 2yrs so i doubt that will have happened.Tigerade wrote:I have now heard that a deal has been struck with Toronto. I wonder if the 3 players released (Bailey, Moi Moi and Taylor) have freed up the cash for Zak ?
They will have a fee to pay Cas and maybe his wages for 2yrs before he can even pull on a shirt in training.
Re: Hardaker
Nosey Parker saying Wigan wanting Z H now think it’s about time it was sorted
Re: Hardaker
Been reading this forum again.
Re: Hardaker
That means ZH will end up anywhere but Wigan!!laner wrote:Nosey Parker saying Wigan wanting Z H now think it’s about time it was sorted
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests