hellovanite says...

I understand it's about employment contracts, but do you really think the club would have acted arbitrary to the contract. Obviously there were conditions that were not met in the opinion of the club and based on advice that they opted out, its for arbitration now. As far as the players ability goes shepherd was actually not bad more than a few years back now, but his day is probably been and gone now. I just think as an impartial observer with no club afiliated agenda saints made the right decision, for now andvthe next three years. If they had of just asked me in the begining they could have avoided all this :)

Posted 12:17 18th August 2012

Jediboy says...

ArmchairGeneral - have you seen the contract? If not you're views, like many, are just speculation.

And to suggest swapping clubs - laughable. Maybe you should support Man Utd instead. (they play football by the way).

Posted 20:38 17th August 2012

Johnny_Guitar says...

Having read Saints statement they'll fight this one as they feel they are clean on this one. It seems they have kept in contact with the player and his agent (who seems to be looking for a payoff) I'm a Saints fan and could never consider 'switching' clubs. It doesn't work like that! regional rugby won't work either Leicester/Saints Bath/Gloucester, not in my lifetime!!

People will always like to have a go at us and occassionally we'll make a mistake but I think we've done nothing wrong here. A while ago some Aussie friends were saying we'd make a massive mistake buying a 'glass' player! Sometimes you can't win.

Posted 11:09 17th August 2012

ArmchairGeneral says...

APV1: he's suing out of principle. Good on him. It's just not on.

Posted 17:09 16th August 2012

APV1 says...

Fair points. So I ask again - what's he suing for? Not why is he suing - that's because he's been treated badly. But what for. My limited knowledge of this sort of thing means that you have to sue for something. I suppose Breach of Contract, but even if he wins, he will only be awarded loss of earnings and I don't suppose there have been much.

I have no idea whether his contract was worded in such a way as to allow Saints to do this. Perhaps it was a conditional offer and the condition was them being satisfied with his current and probable fitness. I appreciate that does seem a little far-fetched, but who knows..?!

We'll have to wait and see.

Posted 15:11 16th August 2012

passtheball says...

APV1 - what would happen if Man U decided that Van Persie was too injury prone and withdraw his contract? If he or Shepherd failed the medical or they had doubts because of the medical then fair enough but both these players have a history of injuries so the clubs know the score. They just might be injury free for the next x years - or not - who knows. Must be a point when a contract must be honoured by both sides or doesn't that matter anymore?

Posted 13:37 16th August 2012

Bones7 says...

Did Saints not end up doing the same with Joe van Niekirk?

Posted 13:15 16th August 2012

ArmchairGeneral says...

@Hellovanite: It is a big issue. Nothing to do with how good Sheperd is/was?

Saints seem to have messed up but it's probably an industry problem. Should check players condition before the contract not after. Even if they're legally correct, decency says check them before for sake of both parties. Only weaknesses incurred between contract and start should be considered if incurred recklessly. From the moment of contract he's a club member even if the season's not started and the pay has not started; it's a commitment if NHsaints integrity means anything. Even in business this is bad form. Very bad form in Rugby; i am ashamed of Saints on this and i am a fan. But i await to see how this pans out and Saints side of the story. I'm switching clubs if this is as it seems.

Posted 10:34 16th August 2012