Manly Salary Cap

[mave]

It's a f**king shame the Seagles are clearly affected by the bad publicity . . . never nice to see the wrong people pay the Piper

You know where you can stick your sympathy....

 

[POPEYE]

You know where you can stick your sympathy....

You won't get sympathy from me ol' mate, what you will get is understanding

Have you been keeping tally of the number of games Melbourne put big scores on Manly . . . does it get any better

 

[mave]

You won't get sympathy from me ol' mate, what you will get is understanding

Have you been keeping tally of the number of games Melbourne put big scores on Manly . . . does it get any better

Thanks ol' mate.
I tend to only keep tallys of premiership winning scores.
History doesn't care who wins the Sheid, more's the pity, so neither do I.

 

[POPEYE]

Thanks ol' mate.
I tend to only keep tallys of premiership winning scores.
History doesn't care who wins the Sheid, more's the pity, so neither do I.

Well then you're wasting your time with me aren't you

 

[Saxon]

Hey sweetheart, I said that privacy laws (and any laws) override any clauses that the NRL or any organisation care to put in their contract.

There is no disputing that at all.

Yes, it is easily disputed. While what you wrote is technically true, it only applies to the extent that you observe the relevant caveats.
For example; if your company's IT policy says something like;
"any personal device used to access or store [Company X] related material (for example emails, documents, spreadheets) shall be made available to the company at any time...etc. etc."
and you sign said IT policy, you abrogate your rights to withhold your device if an auditor asks for it.
unlike consumer law, this is an area where you really can sign your rights away. After all, it was your choice to use your device for work purposes.

 

[Jason Simmons]

failed internet lawyer goes into meltdown lol

He certainly failed alright. He clearly doesn't even understand the definition of common law and the difference between it and legislation, such as the 'Privacy Act' as he calls it. (The actual act is called the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 NSW, but nevermind...)

As a hint for Manly's legal counsel, common law is law derived from custom and judicial precedence. Your 'privacy act' is a statute passed by the NSW Parliament and legally overides the common law...

 

[ANTiLAG]

Yes, it is easily disputed. While what you wrote is technically true, it only applies to the extent that you observe the relevant caveats.
For example; if your company's IT policy says something like;
"any personal device used to access or store [Company X] related material (for example emails, documents, spreadheets) shall be made available to the company at any time...etc. etc."
and you sign said IT policy, you abrogate your rights to withhold your device if an auditor asks for it.
unlike consumer law, this is an area where you really can sign your rights away. After all, it was your choice to use your device for work purposes.

Abrogate rights to withhold? You sure about this? Or is it not far more likely that by not complying with the company demand that you are able to disciplined or even terminated and the company would still need to obtain a search order so as to get access your property? The company could no doubt get such order if it had good reason to believe you are at equitable fault in profiting from the company unlawfully (using company ip (for your own gain or taking a list of customers to establish a rival business to the company on leaving or staying with the company) and thus in fiduciary breach of your obligations, but short of this? The only time someone in a private contractual relationship can lawfully demand superior rights to possession of property from the owner is in a lease relationship, not in a license relationship. I very much doubt this clause has created a lease on demand. Damages is the remedy as of right for a contractual licence breach, not possession. Best of luck seeking specific performance.

Furthermore, re"relevant caveats and Company IT Policy" in all jurisdictions while people are not able to contract out of law, typically there is nothing to prevent employers from putting in clauses in Employment agreements that are not enforceable, thus it is common place for unenforceable terms to exist in such agreements. If a statute says something may not be done, and parties agree to do it anyway, that clause is invalid and non-enforceable. Both the common law and statute law trump contractual agreements here. So if parties agree to contract out of privacy protection legislation where such legislation is not able to be contracted out of, the agreement is meaningless. That is to say, you can only sign rights away that the law permits to be signed away, and protectionist legislation typically limits the contracting away by consumers or employees due to the inequality of bargaining power that typically creates the perceived need for such legislation to begin with.

 

[El Diablo]

As a hint for Manly's legal counsel, common law is law derived from custom and judicial precedence. Your 'privacy act' is a statue passed by the NSW Parliament and legally overides the common law...

seeing Manly had a problem with personal phones and computers wouldn't the actual work computers and phones also be covered by the same thing?

it's just that clubs sign an agreement with the NRL and don't have a problem handing over work related shit even if legally they did not have to do so because no matter what they sign you can't sign away your rights AFAIK

 

[ACTPanthers]

I remember Greenburg on 360 last year saying it was pretty much impossible for the NRL to uncover a concerted effort to rort the salary cap without a whistle blower. I agree it probably is, but f**k mate at least maintain the illusion that you're in charge and semi-competent to enforce your own rules.

As for those taking the "if you've done nothing wrong, what have you got to hide" line I challenge you to not use private browsing mode for a month, then post your browser history for all to see. If you're doing nothing illegal you should have no problems with that being out in the open.

Nothing I look at is illegal... Terrible and disgusting, but not illegal

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Your 'privacy act' is a statue passed by the NSW Parliament and legally overides the common law...

As happens in many public places it looks like a learned Sea Eagle has shat on your statue

 

[Jason Simmons]

You simple, simple, simple freak.

The NRL can have a salary cap because a salary cap is not legislated under common law.[

Privacy laws are legislated under common law.

So when the NRL tries to supercede privacy laws that are legislated under common law, it can't.

As happens in many public places it looks like a learned Sea Eagle has shat on your statue

Typo, but that doesn't change the point. His 'Privacy Act' is a legislated act of Parliament. It ain't 'common law'.

 

[Jason Simmons]

seeing Manly had a problem with personal phones and computers wouldn't the actual work computers and phones also be covered by the same thing?

it's just that clubs sign an agreement with the NRL and don't have a problem handing over work related shit even if legally they did not have to do so because no matter what they sign you can't sign away your rights AFAIK

You may not be able to be legally compelled to hand over such things by legislation under these circumstances if you choose not to, but that doesn't mean you won't be in breach of contract if you don't...

 

[Nice Beaver]

Typo, but that doesn't change the point. His 'Privacy Act' is a legislated act of Parliament. It ain't 'common law'.

Humblest apologies.

The point was that regardless of what they put in their contract, it does not overide the "legislated act".

 

[ANTiLAG]

You may not be able to be legally compelled to hand over such things by legislation under these circumstances if you choose not to, but that doesn't mean you won't be in breach of contract if you don't...

Doubtful. Generally, if the statutory provisions from protectionist legislation are such to remain in force despite agreeing to the contrary under contract, chances are that those clauses are unable to be contracted out of in an employment agreement, and if so, there is no breach of employment contract as the clause is unenforceable; that is to say you cannot contract out of law. But your suggested scenario is not impossible, but it would be an uncommon piece of legislative drafting to permit such a scenario.

But legislative protections are not always absolute: there are often exceptions permitting two trading partners to contract out on the presumption that there is no inequality of bargaining power. The question is to the source and scope of competing rights and the remedies that they make avail.

 

[POPEYE]

Doubtful. Generally, if the statutory provisions from protectionist legislation are such to remain in force despite agreeing to the contrary under contract, chances are that those clauses are unable to be contracted out of in an employment agreement, and if so, there is no breach of employment contract as the clause is unenforceable; that is to say you cannot contract out of law. But your suggested scenario is not impossible, but it would be an uncommon piece of legislative drafting to permit such a scenario.

But legislative protections are not always absolute: there are often exceptions permitting two trading partners to contract out on the presumption that there is no inequality of bargaining power. The question is to the source and scope of competing rights and the remedies that they make avail.

That post should just about end this thread, if it wasn't already in the too-hard basket it is now

 

[justdave]

Are you guys crazy?

xvideos and xnxx trump pornhub any day of the week, you get previews

 

[El Diablo]

and xhamster

 

[justdave]

and xhamster

Well there you go. It does. Never thought it did

Choice is good, just like swapping hands

 

[El Diablo]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/m...s/news-story/190d3ef6dfe361d9a21658b7260169ac

SHOOSH

The Manly salary cap investigation is hotting up. Integrity unit investigators have finished poring over hundreds of thousands of documents and transcripts obtained from computers and phones provided by officials. This week they will begin interviewing key witnesses before deciding whether further action is warranted. There could be a few nervous people on the peninsula this week.

 

[Cherry_poppins]

Thanks ol' mate.
I tend to only keep tallys of premiership winning scores.
History doesn't care who wins the Sheid, more's the pity, so neither do I.

Is a shield like a flag? I prefer to win premierships

They don't talk about they shield bearers, they talk about the premiers