GlennB, thank you for your interest in my post.
Now, if I may politely refer you back to your INR101 texts, maybe a little bit of LAW101, and check a few things out.
Firstly, this is far more than a standard UD case. Plenty of people challenge their dismissal knowing FULL WELL that they will NOT get their jobs back. They even openly acknowledge (or it is proven by the plaintiff) that they, in part, contributed to the degredation of any working relationship. There are also likely to be sections of the contract that have SFA to do with the 'run of the mill' UD cases you help out with as an office boy at the ACTU. Things like clauses that determine fit and proper behaviour of the said employee, obligations of that employee, etc etc. While I agree that you do only need one correctly processed warning to punt someone, in this instance the three warnings are essentially part of the same action - They all resulted from instances of poor behaviour, that were all deemed unacceptable by definitions set out by the employer.
These complex cases usually end up in ARBITRATION. It's a world full of terms like mediation, ambit claims, compromise, non-disclosure and stuff. Bob Hawke knows heaps about it, go look him up.
By asking for $1.2M, Anderson is throwing a HUGE ambit claim out there, hoping to scare the club into agreeing to pay him ANYTHING. If, indeed, that $1.2M figure IS the actual ask, the club will set the wheels in motion that will result in a mutually-acceptable final payout. AND, once more, I say it again. It won't be a piddly little figure, but it WILL NOT be more than $600K. If it is, I'll bloody pay the rest myself.
good i am glad he is gone go sharks 2004 
