Fitzgerald v Parramatta

[Suitman]

FMD it's easy to spend big cash when it's not coming out of your personal pocket isn't it ? What are the Board thinking !?!?! :crazy:

What is the motivation here other than sticking it up him ? Very sad TBH. :?

I said the same the other day, and also questioned who would be paying for this sh*tfight.
It's pathetic. Nothing more than a very expensive school yard fight, and they should all be ashamed of themselves.

Suity

 

[born an eel]

Seriously ? Is that it ? They are spending a $gazillion$ of my money on revenge ?

BAE are you sure that it the crux of the entire case ?

1 The plaintiff, Mr Fitzgerald, was formerly the chief executive of the defendant, Parramatta Leagues Club Ltd.
2 These proceedings were commenced on 19 April 2010 when the plaintiff filed a summons seeking an order restraining the defendant from taking certain steps directed towards termination of the plaintiff’s membership of the defendant. An undertaking in relation to that matter has been given pending trial.

(b) Is the Deed a complete bar to the defendant convening a meeting pursuant to clause 49 of its constitution to consider the plaintiff’s life membership of the defendant on the grounds set out in a letter from the defendant to the plaintiff dated 7 April 2010?”

 

[Bigfella]

I know nothing of the matter other than what is in the judgment of Barret J published on the net. But I can add the following facts to the hysterical summary above by a couple of individuals with massive axes to grind:

1. Fitzgerald instigated the proceedings. His action is to prevent the club from removing his membership.
2. The club gave an undertaking to the court not to do that pending resolution of it's cross claim.
3. The club did not sue to take DF's membership. To say the proceedings are for revenge by the club is way off the mark.
4. The club's cross claim is for what it perceives as a series of misleading and deceptive conduct, and other breaches of contract, by Fitzgerald relating to his performance as an employee and in entering into a deed of settlement/release (presumably relating to the termination of his employment).
5. As to costs this type of action would cost well over a hundred thousand dollars for each side to conclude. So far Fitzgerald lost the interlocutory application and has been ordered to pay the club's costs of that. The club will have taken legal advice as to it's prospects of success. The claim against Fitzgerald will have been certified as having reasonable prospects of success by a solicitor or barrister. It is not clear how much money they are seeking be repaid but presumably they view the amount as being cost effective relative to the costs of the proceedings. Either that or they view the alleged misconduct as so serious that it justifies the action.

 

[strider]

I assume the motivation to take away his membership is probably to try and stop him from trying get back on any board .... rules state you can't be on a board without being a member for so long

a pack of f'n babies the lot of them

 

[ParraAds]

I assume the motivation to take away his membership is probably to try and stop him from trying get back on any board .... rules state you can't be on a board without being a member for so long

a pack of f'n babies the lot of them

Sounds about right... also keeps one less voter from voting against them :lol:

 

[Stagger eel]

I assume the motivation to take away his membership is probably to try and stop him from trying get back on any board .... rules state you can't be on a board without being a member for so long

a pack of f'n babies the lot of them

that means he can't pull the strings to ultimitely get his job back..

 

[born an eel]

I know nothing of the matter other than what is in the judgment of Barret J published on the net. But I can add the following facts to the hysterical summary above by a couple of individuals with massive axes to grind:

1. Fitzgerald instigated the proceedings. His action is to prevent the club from removing his membership.
2. The club gave an undertaking to the court not to do that pending resolution of it's cross claim.
3. The club did not sue to take DF's membership. To say the proceedings are for revenge by the club is way off the mark.
4. The club's cross claim is for what it perceives as a series of misleading and deceptive conduct, and other breaches of contract, by Fitzgerald relating to his performance as an employee and in entering into a deed of settlement/release (presumably relating to the termination of his employment).
5. As to costs this type of action would cost well over a hundred thousand dollars for each side to conclude. So far Fitzgerald lost the interlocutory application and has been ordered to pay the club's costs of that. The club will have taken legal advice as to it's prospects of success. The claim against Fitzgerald will have been certified as having reasonable prospects of success by a solicitor or barrister. It is not clear how much money they are seeking be repaid but presumably they view the amount as being cost effective relative to the costs of the proceedings. Either that or they view the alleged misconduct as so serious that it justifies the action.

if DF had/has been involved in "a series of misleading and deceptive conduct, and other breaches of contract" shouldn't these have been tested before trying to terminate his membership. People are entitled to be "innocent until proven guilty".

 

[Bigfella]

I assume the motivation to take away his membership is probably to try and stop him from trying get back on any board .... rules state you can't be on a board without being a member for so long

a pack of f'n babies the lot of them

That's a massive assumption.

Paragraph 8 of the judgment on the first page of this thread highlights the crux of the Club's claim. It includes allegations that Fitzgerald misled the OLGR, the board, used undue influence on employees, and was involved in conflicts of interest. The club further claims he
misled them prior to them paying him out about those claims.

I would have thought they were all matters a responsible Board would take action over.

 

[born an eel]

That's a massive assumption.

Paragraph 8 of the judgment on the first page of this thread highlights the crux of the Club's claim. It includes allegations that Fitzgerald misled the OLGR, the board, used undue influence on employees, and was involved in conflicts of interest. The club further claims he
misled them prior to them paying him out about those claims.

I would have thought they were all matters a responsible Board would take action over.

that's the counter claim, re: my post above, if they deemed it to be serious shouldn't they have brought action greater than terminating his membership?

 

[Gronk]

That's a massive assumption.

Paragraph 8 of the judgment on the first page of this thread highlights the crux of the Club's claim. It includes allegations that Fitzgerald misled the OLGR, the board, used undue influence on employees, and was involved in conflicts of interest. The club further claims he
misled them prior to them paying him out about those claims.

I would have thought they were all matters a responsible Board would take action over.

Haha you are condoning the litigious nature of their actions without even knowing the facts. Yet you claim others have axes to grind. :lol: @ your bias. Pot calling the kettle black ?

 

[Bigfella]

if DF had/has been involved in "a series of misleading and deceptive conduct, and other breaches of contract" shouldn't these have been tested before trying to terminate his membership. People are entitled to be "innocent until proven guilty".

The judgment reflects that the club wrote him a letter indicating they proposed to convene a meeting considering his membership, in light of certain allegations - which were presumably spelled out.

There is nothing to say they "tried to terminate" his membership. DF then applied for an injunction against them terminating his
membership, or having such a meeting.

My reading of the situation is that Fitzgerald brought the proceedings, and then made the second application for a trial on separate issues, in order to avoid the allegations being tested publicly.

If anyone is trying to prevent their being a test of the allegations ( whether by a board or egm or full court hearing) it is Fitzgerald.

That is based on what is publicly available - which is bugger all really.

 

[Bigfella]

Haha you are condoning the litigious nature of their actions without even knowing the facts. Yet you claim others have axes to grind. :lol: @ your bias. Pot calling the kettle black ?

I am presenting the other side of the argument because nuffies coming in and distorting the facts potentially mislead people.

Let me be clear - I have nonidea who is right and wrong and don't really care.

But it is simply not righ to say the club is being litigious.

They were sued for injunctive relief - for something they hadn't done yet. They responded by setting out their claim as a defensive cross-claim and it includes serious allegations.

Fitzgerald sought to avoid having that heard (as he sought to avoidthe meeting of mbers or board to consider his membership) by bringing a second application which failed.

It looks to me like he is being significantly more litigiious here.

I wouldn't have expressed an opinion like that because I don't believe there's really enough to go on. But if people who try to undermine the board in every thread want to start throwing negative inferences without foundation around, I think it is important to put the other side of view.

 

[strider]

yeah, yeah - i still think they want to piss him off so he can't get his foot back in the door :lol: :lol:

 

[Gronk]

I am presenting the other side of the argument because nuffies coming in and distorting the facts potentially mislead people.

Let me be clear - I have nonidea who is right and wrong and don't really care.

But it is simply not righ to say the club is being litigious.

They were sued for injunctive relief - for something they hadn't done yet. They responded by setting out their claim as a defensive cross-claim and it includes serious allegations.

Fitzgerald sought to avoid having that heard (as he sought to avoidthe meeting of mbers or board to consider his membership) by bringing a second application which failed.

It looks to me like he is being significantly more litigiious here.

I wouldn't have expressed an opinion like that because I don't believe there's really enough to go on. But if people who try to undermine the board in every thread want to start throwing negative inferences without foundation around, I think it is important to put the other side of view.

That's your opinion. Mine is that they dangled the bait in front of Fitzy as they knew he'd strike. They threatened to revoke the life membership from a club that he served for 30 years FFS.

If this pans out to be over trivial points of law, my suspicions will be justified. Also, I hope that they be absolutely transparent to their members and detail all matters which, they believe, justifies their actions to antagonise Fitzy. After all - it's not their money.

 

[Suitman]

I'm so sick of this sh*t.

Aren't they supposed to be running primarily, a rugby league team, for the community, and ultimately, a club that should be to the benifit of the community, that helps fund said league team?

I really am disillusioned about all this, in so many ways.

You lot can all try and be clever ponces and talk your legal jargon sh*t, and the club and Fitz can carry on going 10 rounds in the ring fighting petty battles over egos.
What I'd just like is a bunch of people who care enough about the club to get together and put the club at heart, and do their best to make it as successful as possible.
Maybe I'm dreaming.

Suity

 

[born an eel]

The judgment reflects that the club wrote him a letter indicating they proposed to convene a meeting considering his membership, in light of certain allegations - which were presumably spelled out.

There is nothing to say they "tried to terminate" his membership. DF then applied for an injunction against them terminating his
membership, or having such a meeting.

My reading of the situation is that Fitzgerald brought the proceedings, and then made the second application for a trial on separate issues, in order to avoid the allegations being tested publicly.

If anyone is trying to prevent their being a test of the allegations ( whether by a board or egm or full court hearing) it is Fitzgerald.

That is based on what is publicly available - which is bugger all really.

DF was required to take out the current injunction to stop the board from proceeding with the steps required under clause 49 of the constitution to terminate his membership prior to the proper court case which is pending trial. If you believe the board had not already decided what coursre of action they were going to take, you haven't been following proceedings over the last 6 months.

The club had already agreed not to test the allegations publicly in the termination agreement signed by them 2 june 2009 in return for DF not taking the to task over the circumstances of his dismissal.

In summary, if the board do not try to terminate his membership, none of this or the pending trial and associated bad publicity happen. The board made the first move in this situation.

 

[strider]

:nwave: I haven't been following it .... and i wish i wasn't now

 

[Suitman]

DF was required to take out the current injunction to stop the board from proceeding with the steps required under clause 49 of the constitution to terminate his membership prior to the proper court case which is pending trial. If you believe the board had not already decided what coursre of action they were going to take, you haven't been following proceedings over the last 6 months.

The club had already agreed not to test the allegations publicly in the termination agreement signed by them 2 june 2009 in return for DF not taking the to task over the circumstances of his dismissal.

In summary, if the board do not try to terminate his membership, none of this or the pending trial and associated bad publicity happen. The board made the first move in this situation.

FFS.
Both sides. Wankers.
Please run our club instead of fighting.
Simplistic? Maybe.
Politics? Sucks.

Suity

 

[eels81236]

On the other channel... Sally contemplates a boob reduction. :shock:

 

[bartman]

If this is all just about stopping Fitzgerald from being a member, that's f**ked.

And childish.

I recall Sevens went to the papers when it seemed (to him) that his membership was somehow being blocked.... It says something positive for Fitzy that he hasn't been to the papers about this childish 3P stunt that may be coming out of my membership fees.

I expect an explanation or justification for this nonsense from Sevens, when he next pops his head on this website to spread his usual one-sided propaganda on behalf of those in whose name he supposedly comes on here.