Galvin v the Tigers

[General Stripes]

It sorta does, if he hasn't already got a deal, why would he refuse to even consider the WT's one. He just point blank refused. He has nearly two seasons to go.
His reasoning was: Benji can't coach him and won't improve his game. We don't know what the other 5 reasons were on a 19yo's list of complaints.
The club has a coach who has achieved the highest honours in the position he plays and have bought in arguably one of the best in that position, in the modern era.
I suspect Richo probably knew what was happening and forced the issue.
Now, if he has got a deal, it's against the rules.
So, I hope it does go to court and see what happens.

This is the issue.
No player doesn’t even look at a multi million dollar deal.
His management leaked Benji is not a development coach, he is a rookie, yet Parra is the leading candidate. wtf?
Only thing that makes sense is a massive offer from another club, Parra with their war chest, has come in unofficially.

 

[General Stripes]

What Tito did, was a personal thing, that had nothing to do with the club. I also don't think it would considered bullying.

Was private not a public post too

 

[Bazal]

Which post?
One was a private one amongst friends which isn’t bullying and the other was a “team first” post which isn’t bullying.
That’s before we get to the nothing being repeated or targeted.

Except I've already mentioned the lack of repeated behaviour. He was skating on thin ice with behaviour that constitutes bullying if/when repeated, not officially bullying anyone yet. But it doesn't change that his post was a significant contributing factor to Moses being able to perpetuate the bullying angle with the club and that Turuva's an idiot.

The "private" nature of the post is irrelevant. It was posted, to a platform where it was visible to others who would see it and where it would therefore be reasonably presumed to cause humiliation and hurt to the person it was clearly targeted at. Besides, if it was so private, how come every single one of us has seen it?

That was a different case to what’s on show here.

Again, that's not how it works. That case the Applicant was terminated for harassment, argued that it was unfair, and part of his defence was his intent because he was just foolin' yer honour! Which was rightly slapped to shit by the Commissioner citing the legal fact that intent is irrelevant in the circumstances.

There is more grey in bullying, granted, to the extent that it would be necessary to report the conduct internally and for the person making allegations to ask for it to be stopped before proceeding to a formal body. So there is an opportunity for discourse, so to speak, and an opportunity for genuinely innocent intent to be pulled up before it becomes a big deal. But if it goes beyond that stage, let's say because the person being named is a colleague who says "nah f**k that I'm just joshing harden up", then the intent is irrelevant because the Act specifies unreasonable behaviour that creates a risk of harm. And impact is entirely in the eyes of the victim, because I can't tell you that I haven't harmed you by my conduct that's nonsense.

 

[General Stripes]

Except I've already mentioned the lack of repeated behaviour. He was skating on thin ice with behaviour that constitutes bullying if/when repeated, not officially bullying anyone yet. But it doesn't change that his post was a significant contributing factor to Moses being able to perpetuate the bullying angle with the club and that Turuva's an idiot.

Rubbish. It wasn’t bullying in anyway. It wasn’t targeted. It wasn’t repeated and it wasn’t public.
You going to say what I tell my wife about a. Workmate is now bullying?

The "private" nature of the post is irrelevant. It was posted, to a platform where it was visible to others who would see it and where it would therefore be reasonably presumed to cause humiliation and hurt to the person it was clearly targeted at. Besides, if it was so private, how come every single one of us has seen it?

Wasn’t intended to cause hurt. Wasn’t a hate filled post. It was a joke about momey, f**k me when be gotten messages from work mates at my last job on the rail when I went to the mines that had the same damn song. At no stage did they bag him for signing unofficially for bigger coin.

Again, that's not how it works. That case the Applicant was terminated for harassment, argued that it was unfair, and part of his defence was his intent because he was just foolin' yer honour! Which was rightly slapped to shit by the Commissioner citing the legal fact that intent is irrelevant in the circumstances.

It is how it works. Wasn’t repeated, wasn’t targeted, wasn’t used to cause harm.

There is more grey in bullying, granted, to the extent that it would be necessary to report the conduct internally and for the person making allegations to ask for it to be stopped before proceeding to a formal body. So there is an opportunity for discourse, so to speak, and an opportunity for genuinely innocent intent to be pulled up before it becomes a big deal. But if it goes beyond that stage, let's say because the person being named is a colleague who says "nah f**k that I'm just joshing harden up", then the intent is irrelevant because the Act specifies unreasonable behaviour that creates a risk of harm. And impact is entirely in the eyes of the victim, because I can't tell you that I haven't harmed you by my conduct that's nonsense.

You would have every man women and child brought up in charges for a wayward comment if that were true. Much worse than either post.

 

[Bazal]

It sorta does, if he hasn't already got a deal, why would he refuse to even consider the WT's one. He just point blank refused. He has nearly two seasons to go.
His reasoning was: Benji can't coach him and won't improve his game. We don't know what the other 5 reasons were on a 19yo's list of complaints.
The club has a coach who has achieved the highest honours in the position he plays and have bought in arguably one of the best in that position, in the modern era.
I suspect Richo probably knew what was happening and forced the issue.
Now, if he has got a deal, it's against the rules.
So, I hope it does go to court and see what happens.

Not sure what a court would do tbh? The rules of private enterprise are a matter for the enterprise. At most there could be civil damages for a breach of contract, but that would be hard to prove.

Anyway, in response to the rest, it's clearly Moses manipulation based on timing. Why would he tell Wests to bigger off out of the blue, for e.g? They were putting together an offer, so it was a wholly reasonable time to say "actually we're not interested in staying here."

Of course Moses has taken that into pretty unreasonable territory, no disagreement there.

If we run with the assumption he'll end up with Parra, we are absolutely not competent enough to sneak around something like this without it being minuted and probably published in a f**ken press release. More than likely Moses has seen the Brown thing, understands his client doesn't want to be at Wests, understands that Wests were preparing an offer and therefore he had a window of f**kery that he could use, has rung Parra saying "would you be interested in the kid?" and has gone to Galvin saying "hey kid, I can get you out if you like, how does Parra sound they'll be desperate..."

Moses then does his slimy shit and if all goes to plan gets Galvin to Parra next year (or even this year, that's a bonus for him) on a big money deal probably with an increased % for the manager that sees him get a higher cut sooner.

 

[Tigerm]

Not sure what a court would do tbh? The rules of private enterprise are a matter for the enterprise. At most there could be civil damages for a breach of contract, but that would be hard to prove.

Anyway, in response to the rest, it's clearly Moses manipulation based on timing. Why would he tell Wests to bigger off out of the blue, for e.g? They were putting together an offer, so it was a wholly reasonable time to say "actually we're not interested in staying here."

Of course Moses has taken that into pretty unreasonable territory, no disagreement there.

If we run with the assumption he'll end up with Parra, we are absolutely not competent enough to sneak around something like this without it being minuted and probably published in a f**ken press release. More than likely Moses has seen the Brown thing, understands his client doesn't want to be at Wests, understands that Wests were preparing an offer and therefore he had a window of f**kery that he could use, has rung Parra saying "would you be interested in the kid?" and has gone to Galvin saying "hey kid, I can get you out if you like, how does Parra sound they'll be desperate..."

Moses then does his slimy shit and if all goes to plan gets Galvin to Parra next year (or even this year, that's a bonus for him) on a big money deal probably with an increased % for the manager that sees him get a higher cut sooner.

I want it go to court, so the club can ask the question to Moses and Galvin in a court of law, have they already made a deal, which is against the NRL contract rules.
Moses may be a good liar, but not sure Galvin will be, if they say something that is false.

 

[General Stripes]

I want it go to court, so the club can ask the question to Moses and Galvin under oath, have they already made a deal, which is against the NRL contract rules.
Moses may be a good liar, but not sure Galvin will be, if they say something that is false.

Then I’m sure there would be questions about Moses attacking the coaches and players at the club, which started the whole thing.

 

[Tiger5150]

Not sure what a court would do tbh? The rules of private enterprise are a matter for the enterprise. At most there could be civil damages for a breach of contract, but that would be hard to prove.

A court case would bring everything out into the open for NRL to act on.

 

[Bazal]

Rubbish. It wasn’t bullying in anyway. It wasn’t targeted. It wasn’t repeated and it wasn’t public.
You going to say what I tell my wife about a. Workmate is now bullying?

That's disingenuous oversimplification, and you know it.

If you tell your wife Johnny was a real f**knut today over dinner, of course not and you know it. If you post on her Facebook wall where you have 7 shared connections that Johnny is a total f**kwit and you suspect he might fiddle kiddies in his spare time, that's an incredibly different matter. This obviously falls between the two examples on the spectrum, but I can oversimplify too.

Social media will f**k us all up. Never put anything about a work colleague on there, there's some free advice for all.

Otherwise, yes it was targeted and public enough, and once again it's not relevant if it was public for the plebs to see because the person it was targeted at could be affected by it. You don't think Turuva and Galvin share mates playing at the same club?

I'm not saying it was bullying, not least because I'm not the one it was aimed at and like I said impact is a matter for that person, not me. But given slimy Isaac has accused the club of bullying, I'd say it was at the very least not a welcome bit of "ribbing".

Wasn’t intended to cause hurt. Wasn’t a hate filled post. It was a joke about momey, f**k me when be gotten messages from work mates at my last job on the rail when I went to the mines that had the same damn song. At no stage did they bag him for signing unofficially for bigger coin.

And if you had been harmed by those messages they could very well constitute bullying. But sounds like you weren't, which is also your right. Bullying requires harm. Literally it's a no harm no foul area.

That said, if they used a workplace service to do it for e.g. and it was objectively viewed as a breach of a code of conduct they could be sacked regardless. But that's a different chat.

It is how it works. Wasn’t repeated, wasn’t targeted, wasn’t used to cause harm.

As per your, what, 4 hour bullying info session?

I've quoted case law, at least find one source to back this up.

You would have every man women and child brought up in charges for a wayward comment if that were true. Much worse than either post.

Tbh this just shows a lack of understanding of the juris. No one gets charged with workplace bullying, it's a civil complaint.

 

[Bazal]

I want it go to court, so the club can ask the question to Moses and Galvin in a court of law, have they already made a deal, which is against the NRL contract rules.
Moses may be a good liar, but not sure Galvin will be, if they say something that is false.

A court case would bring everything out into the open for NRL to act on.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

It's a civil matter, not criminal. And I doubt Isaac is silly enough to actually be in breach yet anyway. At most he's felt out a club's interest and is now working to get to a stage where a deal can be done.

Look, as much as Tigers fans might hate to hear it, IMO the best option is a conditional release on their terms. Deed it out with some reduced payout, a strict non-disparagement clause and legal release, insert essentially a non-compete clause that bars him from playing for another NRL club for at least the rest of 2025, and say if you really want out sign it or be in NSW cup til 2027.

 

[General Stripes]

That's disingenuous oversimplification, and you know it.

If you tell your wife Johnny was a real f**knut today over dinner, of course not and you know it. If you post on her Facebook wall where you have 7 shared connections that Johnny is a total f**kwit and you suspect he might fiddle kiddies in his spare time, that's an incredibly different matter. This obviously falls between the two examples on the spectrum, but I can oversimplify too.

Social media will f**k us all up. Never put anything about a work colleague on there, there's some free advice for all.

Otherwise, yes it was targeted and public enough, and once again it's not relevant if it was public for the plebs to see because the person it was targeted at could be affected by it. You don't think Turuva and Galvin share mates playing at the same club?

I'm not saying it was bullying, not least because I'm not the one it was aimed at and like I said impact is a matter for that person, not me. But given slimy Isaac has accused the club of bullying, I'd say it was at the very least not a welcome bit of "ribbing".



And if you had been harmed by those messages they could very well constitute bullying. But sounds like you weren't, which is also your right. Bullying requires harm. Literally it's a no harm no foul area.

That said, if they used a workplace service to do it for e.g. and it was objectively viewed as a breach of a code of conduct they could be sacked regardless. But that's a different chat.



As per your, what, 4 hour bullying info session?

I've quoted case law, at least find one source to back this up.



Tbh this just shows a lack of understanding of the juris. No one gets charged with workplace bullying, it's a civil complaint.

You really are just a club troll. Zero common sense. Zero responsibility.

 

[Bazal]

You really are just a club troll. Zero common sense. Zero responsibility.

Well, that went from a decent discussion to you rolling over pretty quick. Shame.

 

[General Stripes]

Look, as much as Tigers fans might hate to hear it, IMO the best option is a conditional release on their terms. Deed it out with some reduced payout, a strict non-disparagement clause and legal release, insert essentially a non-compete clause that bars him from playing for another NRL club for at least the rest of 2025, and say if you really want out sign it or be in NSW cup til 2027.

Literally every Tiges fan wants him gone.
But the club that has played a part of these shenanigans with Moses has to pay something to the Tiges to get said release. If not he serves his time with us.

 

[General Stripes]

Well, that went from a decent discussion to you rolling over pretty quick. Shame.

No rolling here. You ignore every bit of common sense and go the pity me angel.

 

[Bazal]

No rolling here. You ignore every bit of common sense and go the pity me angel.

Hey? Bro that's an unhinged take, I'm sorry. Not once have I mentioned or inferred that any pity was warranted for anyone? And I've been pretty clear about my views on Moses and on Galvin being a flog.

At the same time, I'm sorry, but you're absolutely not correct in your IR Law takes.

 

[Tigerm]

Maybe yes, maybe no.

It's a civil matter, not criminal. And I doubt Isaac is silly enough to actually be in breach yet anyway. At most he's felt out a club's interest and is now working to get to a stage where a deal can be done.

Look, as much as Tigers fans might hate to hear it, IMO the best option is a conditional release on their terms. Deed it out with some reduced payout, a strict non-disparagement clause and legal release, insert essentially a non-compete clause that bars him from playing for another NRL club for at least the rest of 2025, and say if you really want out sign it or be in NSW cup til 2027.

Look if it gets to a court, then we will all know more than what we know now.
He's not really costing that much to worry about the dollars.
Personally, I'd like to see him kept here at the club to see his contract out.
He's still young enough to play in the U21's.
For me, it's about drawing a line in the sand, it's not the first time this has happened, one was with Moses, who tanked and kicked stones to go to Parra.
I understand the NRL is looking at this incident, so we'll see what comes of that, but I hope the club does not deal with his bloke ever again.

 

[General Stripes]

Hey? Bro that's an unhinged take, I'm sorry. Not once have I mentioned or inferred that any pity was warranted for anyone? And I've been pretty clear about my views on Moses and on Galvin being a flog.

At the same time, I'm sorry, but you're absolutely not correct in your IR Law takes.

I disagree.

 

[dogslife]

He's coming to the Dogs to be mentored by the great Kurt Mann.

You heard it here first.

 

[General Stripes]

He's coming to the Dogs to be mentored by the great Kurt Mann.

You heard it here first.

Pay us.

 

[Pezz70]

I think Turuva and others slagging him off on socials is a bridge too far. Bit I also think ever since his debut he's come across as a money grubbing egomaniac, and this smacks of that as much as anything.

You reap what you sow. Maybe not so much Galvin, because a fair bit of this might be driven by other parties. The tigers should fight the bullying claims with a counter claim that moves have been made in bad faith to cause a contract to be breached. With contracts there is a ‘good faith’ assumption that all parties will act ethically to fulfil the terms of the contract. If one side intentionally does acts to undermine the contract they may be liable. I think there have been certain media releases that the NRL should also have a look at, that are certainly not in the best interests of rugby league. Of course this would be subject to proper inquiry we all make assumptions on what is portrayed in the media and that may not be the full story