Daniel Anderson eyes court action against Parramatta Eels over a payout dispute

[Gazzamatta]

Possibly the investigation into the running of the NRL team in 2010 revealed issues that necessitated Mr Anderson being summarily dismissed and thereby not entitled to one red cent?
Possibly his contract required him acheiving certain KPI's to be paid?
The bottom line is that know one knows and furthermore any settlement will be subject to a "Deed of Release" with strict confidentiality requirements attached.
Let the legal eagles do their stuff and dont stress.

 

[carson]

Anyone who thinks a potential 300k settlement would not be in the hands of lawyers seriously has no idea.

It would be commercial suicide for either party not to get advice and try to structure the payment in the most advantageous way.

For example, these situations are often classified a redundancies fortax benefits to the employee (won't work here obviously).

Sometimes the employer wil get a discount for paying in a lump sum, and if the employee has new job prospects, that is often a huge bonus because he can earn the payout and a new salary, effectively acquiring a bonus of up to a year's salary.

And sometimes one party's manager doesn't return calls because another of his clients has been caught f$&@ing a dog that week.

The only things that have been revealed are: that it is in the hands with the lawyers, and that Anderson has used the media again to leverage a private dispute.

Where are the cries of "leaks" now?

Exactly and if this was anywhere near as serious as the article is trying to make it out to be do you really think it would be Paul Osborne negotiating with lawyers? It would be lawyers talking to lawyers.

They are probably arguing over semantics such as how much certain benefits would be worth when converted to $$$s. These things take time and until all parties are happy you wouldn't make any payments.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Exactly and if this was anywhere near as serious as the article is trying to make it out to be do you really think it would be Paul Osborne negotiating with lawyers? It would be lawyers talking to lawyers.

They are probably arguing over semantics such as how much certain benefits would be worth when converted to $$$s. These things take time and until all parties are happy you wouldn't make any payments.

Firstly, you are right about Osbourne, he ain't that clever.

Secondly, it's easy to put a dollar value on benefits, accountants do it all the time when calculating FBT.

 

[Eels Dude]

Possibly the investigation into the running of the NRL team in 2010 revealed issues that necessitated Mr Anderson being summarily dismissed and thereby not entitled to one red cent?
Possibly his contract required him acheiving certain KPI's to be paid?
The bottom line is that know one knows and furthermore any settlement will be subject to a "Deed of Release" with strict confidentiality requirements attached.
Let the legal eagles do their stuff and dont stress.

You cannot put KPIs in place in regards to the club's performance as the onus of the performance is not entirely dependent on him. There are stacks of factors involved. He certainly wouldn't have signed a contract stating 'if you fail to take the side to the finals for one season your contract will be terminated with no payout'.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

You cannot put KPIs in place in regards to the club's performance as the onus of the performance is not entirely dependent on him. There are stacks of factors involved. He certainly wouldn't have signed a contract stating 'if you fail to take the side to the finals for one season your contract will be terminated with no payout'.

Makes for a cool story though.

 

[Gronk]

Possibly the investigation into the running of the NRL team in 2010 revealed issues that necessitated Mr Anderson being summarily dismissed and thereby not entitled to one red cent?
Possibly his contract required him acheiving certain KPI's to be paid?

Possibly Ando is being railroaded.

The bottom line is that know one knows and furthermore any settlement will be subject to a "Deed of Release" with strict confidentiality requirements attached.
Let the legal eagles do their stuff and dont stress.

This is true, we'll never find out the full story because all parties will be muzzled. That kinda suits the protagonists in this case methinks.

 

[Gazzamatta]

You cannot put KPIs in place in regards to the club's performance as the onus of the performance is not entirely dependent on him. There are stacks of factors involved. He certainly wouldn't have signed a contract stating 'if you fail to take the side to the finals for one season your contract will be terminated with no payout'.

I agree. Thats why I said the KPI's would be his NOT the Clubs.
Sheesh.

 

[mickdo]

You cannot put KPIs in place in regards to the club's performance as the onus of the performance is not entirely dependent on him. There are stacks of factors involved.

On the contrary, I'm sure there are coaches out there that have bonuses/KPI's depending on how far the team makes it each year

He certainly wouldn't have signed a contract stating 'if you fail to take the side to the finals for one season your contract will be terminated with no payout'.

No kidding, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be on field performance based clauses in his contract

 

[Eels Dude]

I agree. Thats why I said the KPI's would be his NOT the Clubs.
Sheesh.

Sheesh?

What kind of KPI's can you put on a coach apart from on field performance... He was supposed to control a certain amount of training sessions? KPI's reflect overall targets... and the goal in a professional sporting competition is pretty simple. But you cannot put KPIs in place to demand a coach takes his side to the GF or even the finals EVERY year. If you have an example of another KPI in regards to head coaching please give me an example.

 

[Eels Dude]

No kidding, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be on field performance based clauses in his contract

I very much doubt it. Otherwise clubs could sign players to similar contracts and just sack them if they thought they were underperforming. More likely, if clubs were worried about this, they would sign a coach to a 2 season deal with a 1 year option in their favour determined on results.

 

[strider]

well much of the time a manager's KPIs ARE dependant on the performance of their staff - hard not to

but who knows if there is any such thing with footy coaches .... totally pointless to even speculate there is or isn't really

 

[Suitman]

Wow, I don't even have to add my 2c to this thread... it's already been done by many many others. :lol:.

Though the argument that no-one can know all the intricate details so no-one can make a comment about their opinion (given what is known/revealed) is starting to look like very political posting imo...

You may think that Bart but my motives are not political at all.
Personally, I think it's unwise to be making personal judgements and casting aspertions about people regarding a situation we know nothing about. And that goes for both parties in this situation.

Suity

 

[Gronk]

Maybe the board should have KPI's.

:nwave:

 

[born an eel]

Maybe the board should have KPI's.

:nwave:

first KPI should be "fulfill promises made at election time."
KPI no. 2, refer KPI no.1

 

[mickdo]

I very much doubt it. Otherwise clubs could sign players to similar contracts and just sack them if they thought they were underperforming. More likely, if clubs were worried about this, they would sign a coach to a 2 season deal with a 1 year option in their favour determined on results.

A club can sack a coach any time they like. It's how much they have to pay them out that is the question. I have no doubt whatsoever that there would be clauses in the majority of NRL coaches' contracts that determine their renumeration based on on-field performance.

 

[Gronk]

A club can sack a coach any time they like. It's how much they have to pay them out that is the question. I have no doubt whatsoever that there would be clauses in the majority of NRL coaches' contracts that determine their renumeration based on on-field performance.

Agree. Coaches in any sport would be mad to sign such a deal. You only need a few matters beyond your control like a run of injuries and you could face the bullet.

Only when you had the right to build the team from scratch could a coach be asked to take 100% responsibility for the teams on field results and even then you'd argue that you can only do so much.

 

[ParraAds]

Maybe the board should have KPI's.

:nwave:

More KPI's and less PI's.

 

[Eels Dude]

A club can sack a coach any time they like. It's how much they have to pay them out that is the question. I have no doubt whatsoever that there would be clauses in the majority of NRL coaches' contracts that determine their renumeration based on on-field performance.

They can sack a coach anytime they like but if the coach has a 3 year contract and they sack him after 2 years, he has the right to mimimum payment for the third. There would probably be bonuses for coaches for doing well, much like players but I doubt that's the case here. I get what you're saying, but if a club backloads a player and then decides before his has season that he's not worth the 600k so want to sack him, they still have to pay the entire amount.

 

[lingard]

Look I'll come clean. I am a big supporter of the current board, I even voted them in. But even i can admit they are not doing a good job.

Well, with all due respects, M.E - how on earth would you know?

 

[Suitman]

Well, with all due respects, M.E - how on earth would you know?

He reads this message board. All the info we need to know can be found here.

Suity