Have the Tigers convinced Moltzen to stay? Release sought from his Saints contract

[M2D2]

And hes a shifty bastard.
So i guess we have to wait to see how this plays out.


P.S. When Turner went back on the titans "verbal agreement" without signing anything. I believed the titans werent entitled to anything. Yet the Storm still gave them something. Dont know how this situation will go.

 

[_Johnsy]

You're right mate, he is nothing special at all. We have our elite players signed up: Moltzen is not one of them.

Your club thinks otherwise.

 

[Goddo]

If there is a verbal agreement that organisations are making decisions based upon, it is legally binding.

The situation is clear cut - either

the Tigers (Humphries) shut up and move on,
pay St George some sort of compensation for screwing with their playing roster and keep Moltzen, or
seek mediation or some sort of legal result and argue their case (where the outcome is far from guarenteed)

You can't release a player because of cap reasons, sack another for off field behaviour and then try and argue you never released the first player. Dodgy fking club.

 

[Fordy20]

There is one point that has been discussed numerous times, which it appears you have missed.

His manager was given a verbal assurance, from the club a release would be granted. We then signed him on this undertaking (release was forthcoming).

<snip reason="relevance" />

www.smh.com.au/.../no-issue-with-moltzens-release-from-tigers-says-agent- 20110711-1haue.html

No issue with Moltzen's release from Tigers, says agent
Glenn Jackson
July 12, 2011

TIM MOLTZEN is likely to secure a controversial release from Wests Tigers today, four days after his signing was trumpeted by St George Illawarra - a move sparking a war of words between the 22-year-old's current club and his future one.

Moltzen's manager, Martin Tauber, will meet with Tigers chief executive Stephen Humphreys today over the utility back's future. He has already secured a verbal agreement from Humphreys that Moltzen will be released from the final year of his Tigers contract, enabling him to officially join the Dragons and potentially be a replacement for Darius Boyd at fullback.

Tauber spoke with Dragons chief executive Peter Doust and next year's coach Steve Price yesterday and assured them the Tigers would not stop the move. ''They're not going to stand in his way,'' Tauber said.

Jackson states in his article that he has already secured a verbal agreement from Humphreys that Moltzen will be released from his final year. What is this based on? The only thing in the article you posted is verbal assurances from Tauber that the Tigers won't stand in the way of Tim going to the Dragons. The Tigers haven't stated at any point that Tim has been given a release.

Statement from Official Website

Whilst it was announced earlier this year by St George-Illawarra Dragons that Tim had signed a new contract with them to commence in 2012, Wests Tigers has not granted him a release from his existing contract with the Club that expires at the end of next season.

The matter is ongoing and the Club will work with Tim&#8217;s Manager and the Dragons to resolve the situation as quickly as possible.

That's the official statement from the Tigers, which is merely reiterating the point made back in July that the Dragons announced Tim's signing without determining whether Tim had secured a release from the Tigers. Here's an article from July stating precisely that.

Wests Tigers fuming as St George Illawarra sign youngster Tim Moltzen to three-year NRL contract

Wests Tigers have responded angrily to St George Illawarra's announcement that Tim Moltzen has agreed to a three-year contract with the Dragons.

Moltzen will play with St George Illawarra from 2012, shoring up the youngster's future after question marks hung over his place within the Tigers team beyond the current season.

However Wests Tigers CEO Stephen Humphreys said in a statement that the signing was news to the club, also berating the Dragons for their timing and handling of the media release.

"The fact that the Dragons made the announcement this afternoon has come as a complete surprise to us," Humphreys said on Friday.

"We are extremely disappointed that they chose this course of action without any co-ordination or agreement with us.

"We have been in discussions with Tim Moltzen&#8217;s manager regarding his future but at this point have not formally agreed to release him from the final year of his playing contract with Wests Tigers.

The key point people seem to be missing in this whole affair is that there is nothing in the statement issued by the Tigers saying where they envisage Moltzen playing next year or even what their intentions are. They are simply stating that Moltzen hasn't been given a release and they are trying to work this out with all parties, yet you've got Dragons fans blowing up deluxe, demanding compensation and making assumptions about what the club wants to do based on rumour and media speculation.

The funny thing is, if Doust had done his due diligence in the first place and not went off half cocked, Tauber would have had a signed release from the club, Tim could have made the announcement himself about where he was playing next year and this whole debacle would never have happened. Yet somehow, this is all Humphreys' fault.

 

[_Johnsy]

yet you've got Dragons fans blowing up deluxe, demanding compensation and making assumptions about what the club wants to do based on rumour and media speculation.

I think "blowing up deluxe is a massive over reaction. I think you'll find dragons fans are saying if moltzen stays with the tigers, compensation should be forthcoming as we were not able to be in the market for another player to fill that void.

I am yet to see one dragons fan "blowing up deluxe".

Fans wanting fair compensation (explained above) is far from blowing up deluxe, and you know it.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/tigofwar-for-moltzens-services-20111005-1l9qf.html

"Humphreys held discussions with his counterpart Peter Doust last night, and the pair have agreed to speak again today. ''We'll see what we can do,'' Humphreys said. ''It's a bit of a pickle, but these things happen from time to time. ''I'd like to think we can resolve it one way or another. Nobody wants to be getting all legal and trying to push players towards doing things they don't want to do.''

Strange language for Steven to use, maybe he is not so confident if this went to the courts.

One thing is clear Hunphreys gave a verbal assurance that he would be given a release, & dragons then signed him. Trying to paint Doust has not "done his due diligence" & "gone off 1/2 cocked" is laughable. Humphreys gave a verbal assurance and now wants to renege. Is it that hard to think that verbal assurances have never been given befre and the club has then followed through on that assurance. I'd suggest it is common practice, West Tigers will come out of this looking amateurish.

 

[Sam H]

West Tigers will come out of this looking amateurish.

Don't worry about come out of it looking amateurish, they went in to it looking like a bunch of jokers, and now they're looking even worse.

The last CEO got the chop because Sheensy didn't like him. The new one signed Sheens up for another 3 years on an upgraded contract after Sheens said he wanted another couple of seasons with the roster he had patiently put together..and then upon re-signing decided he actually wanted to get rid of a bunch of contracted players after all, with the CEO's backing. We shop around any number of guys, one agrees to go, and then after his form picks up and the halfback we should have given the flick last year after his first offence disgraces himself again we want him after all. Sure, there's no sign of profesionalism here at any level, but that's nothing new.

Having said that, Saints also look like a bunch of mugs given the timing of the initial announcement, particularly given circumstances in which there appears to be at least some doubt about whether a release had been formally granted.

 

[_Johnsy]

Having said that, Saints also look like a bunch of mugs given the timing of the initial announcement, particularly given circumstances in which there appears to be at least some doubt about whether a release had been formally granted.

Agree, without a formal release, get moltzen to sign a letter of intent or something similar.

 

[innsaneink]

Don't worry about come out of it looking amateurish, they went in to it looking like a bunch of jokers, and now they're looking even worse.

The last CEO got the chop because Sheensy didn't like him. The new one signed Sheens up for another 3 years on an upgraded contract after Sheens said he wanted another couple of seasons with the roster he had patiently put together..and then upon re-signing decided he actually wanted to get rid of a bunch of contracted players after all, with the CEO's backing. We shop around any number of guys, one agrees to go, and then after his form picks up and the halfback we should have given the flick last year after his first offence disgraces himself again we want him after all. Sure, there's no sign of profesionalism here at any level, but that's nothing new.

Having said that, Saints also look like a bunch of mugs given the timing of the initial announcement, particularly given circumstances in which there appears to be at least some doubt about whether a release had been formally granted.

The article posted a few back also says Doust advised WTs they were going to announce his signing before they actually did. Humpty then expresses surprise and indignation calling saints arrogant and disrespectful.
I think it all stems somehow from the unusual announcement on the friday we played Parra

 

[R2Coupe]

Sounds like posturing from both sides for negotiations which will occur.

 

[Cumberland Throw]

He hasn't been released. Case closed

 

[Marshall_magic]

I get the impression that Benji & Farah run the show there.

Garbage, everyone knows Tim Sheens runs the show here. He even got our last CEO sacked.

 

[Hooch]

How on earth do you prove a verbal contract unless you recorded it.

Surely a verbal agreement is useless.

 

[innsaneink]

How on earth do you prove a verbal contract unless you recorded it.

Surely a verbal agreement is useless.

Witnesses?
Stat. decs?
Dunno

 

[Outlaw Pete]

To all of you Tigers apologists Moltzen signed with St G 12 or so weeks ago. Nothing has been said until Lui's 2nd girlfriend assault resulting in them wanting to get rid of Lui. Indeed I read Sheens acknowledeged Moltzen was leaving and the team also knew.
Tigers now want to get rid if Lui and now need a halback. It was common knowledge in the press that the WT needed to offload players to get Blair. Moltzen was one of those players given permission to look elsewhere/and or told they were not wanted next year.
Humphreys or who is running that club look very unprofessional. If 2 of their front rowers were to be dismissed for unsavoury acts would they be now trying to get back Fifita and Gibbs ??

 

[saint_marto88]

If 2 of their front rowers were to be dismissed for unsavoury acts would they be now trying to get back Fifita and Gibbs ??

Absolutely.

I'm appalled to be honest.

:crazy:

 

[bubblesunlimited]

It is not ideal and does not look good for the club.

A contract should be binding, but these days if you miss yo mama or you just plain and simple change your mind they can be broken far too easily in my opinion.

We all make decisions that we regret but sometimes you just gotta bite the lemon and do your best.

 

[St_Jubbsy]

How on earth do you prove a verbal contract unless you recorded it.

Surely a verbal agreement is useless.

Plenty of ways they can be proven....court can make a determination based on evidence of those involved.

As a lawyer who deals with contract law on an ongoing basis, I can say no one here can actually give an opinion on likely legal outcome that carries much weight because it would depend on facts and evidence we can only speculate on. But I will say a couple of things:

1) clubs never seek written releases when negotiating with already contracted players if they are given an assurance that player has/ will be released;

2) Moltzen and/or his manager are unlikely to go negotiate/agree terms with another unless they have a pretty strong assurance that a release was forthcoming;

3) the Tigers have had so many opportunities to bring this to a head - remember media during semis when Moltzen was playing his future club - and nothing was said.

Either the Tigers are incompetent or dishonest. Every Tigers supporter I know has been assuming Moltzen was a done deal and now we're expected to believe that the club itself is nonplussed about it. It stinks.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Don't worry about come out of it looking amateurish, they went in to it looking like a bunch of jokers, and now they're looking even worse.

The last CEO got the chop because Sheensy didn't like him. The new one signed Sheens up for another 3 years on an upgraded contract after Sheens said he wanted another couple of seasons with the roster he had patiently put together..and then upon re-signing decided he actually wanted to get rid of a bunch of contracted players after all, with the CEO's backing. We shop around any number of guys, one agrees to go, and then after his form picks up and the halfback we should have given the flick last year after his first offence disgraces himself again we want him after all. Sure, there's no sign of profesionalism here at any level, but that's nothing new.

Having said that, Saints also look like a bunch of mugs given the timing of the initial announcement, particularly given circumstances in which there appears to be at least some doubt about whether a release had been formally granted.

The timing of an announcement? Why should they care whether or not another team is playing that weekend? It's a bit odd that the tigers have waited 12 weeks to contest this, surely if a release was not granted it would have played out much earlier than it has.

 

[skeepe]

No surprises here, the Tigers are almost as scummy as Manly.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

I want him to stay at the Tigers simply because it'll tip the Saints v Tigers matches in the future over the edge.

In the words of some old Westie prick;

f**k yas Saints, ya merkins.