moltz staying

[saints4ever]

Due diligence? They were approached by a player and management, a contract was signed. A release has not been agreed upon, it is the managements responsibility to sought it out. Boyd hasnt got his release either, who knows why, but we won't be stopping him going. This is all because Lui has proven to be scum a second time around (suprise suprise), and coz ur CEO f**ked up big time in not sacking him last year, he put all his hopes on him being your halfback. Now he backflips on his backflips.
He has made himself look like a fool, dragging this out for no reason. How some of the tigers fans think this is ok is beyond me. Do you not think he is harming your future dealings by acting like this? And its only moltzen for f**ks sake

 

[Bang]

I think Doust's has failed to perform due diligence if he did not ascertain Wests Tigers' position and relied solely upon Tauber's representations. It should be noted that Doust has no contract with the Tigers and therefore has no basis to compel the Tigers to released Moltzen. If the Tigers breached NRL rules then the Dragons can certainly pursue that avenue.

Still, the fact that it has ended up in such a mess suggests that all parties have erred, albeit to varying degrees.

I didn't care about releasing Moltzen, but due to my hatred of the Dragons, I hope we win this one...

So if you leave one employer and get a job with another it is the job of the new employer to check with your former employer to make sure you are not still contracted to them. Or would it be the case that it would be your responsibility or the responsibility of an agent acting on your behalf to divulge that you were still under contract to your former employers.

To be honest I would be surprised if a section of Moltzen's contract did not cover that he did not have anything preventing him from entering into a contract with the Dragons.

 

[TimmyB]

Due diligence? They were approached by a player and management, a contract was signed. A release has not been agreed upon, it is the managements responsibility to sought it out. Boyd hasnt got his release either, who knows why, but we won't be stopping him going. This is all because Lui has proven to be scum a second time around (suprise suprise), and coz ur CEO f**ked up big time in not sacking him last year, he put all his hopes on him being your halfback. Now he backflips on his backflips.
He has made himself look like a fool, dragging this out for no reason. How some of the tigers fans think this is ok is beyond me. Do you not think he is harming your future dealings by acting like this? And its only moltzen for f**ks sake

According to just about every media source around, Boyd had a get out clause in his contract with the Dragons. It's a completely different situation. Once Bennett left, he had the right to unilaterally rescind the contract, which he did.

If it plays out that your only legal recourse is against Moltzen, then Doust has f**ked up. Unequivocally.

Do I think he's harming future dealings? Not really to be perfectly honest. It's a novel case and it will be forgotten in the future. Perhaps clubs will be more cautious with us and will require contractually binding agreements, but I have no problem with that. That's prudent behavior.

 

[Guvner]

So if you leave one employer and get a job with another it is the job of the new employer to check with your former employer to make sure you are not still contracted to them. Or would it be the case that it would be your responsibility or the responsibility of an agent acting on your behalf to divulge that you were still under contract to your former employers.

To be honest I would be surprised if a section of Moltzen's contract did not cover that he did not have anything preventing him from entering into a contract with the Dragons.

Precisely. This due diligence rubbish is a smoke screen. Due diligence in regards to the release falls at the feet of the player and or his manager. If indeed they were given verbal assurance of a release, Humpty will be in trouble. But Doust really has no concerns here in regards to his actions.

 

[TimmyB]

So if you leave one employer and get a job with another it is the job of the new employer to check with your former employer to make sure you are not still contracted to them. Or would it be the case that it would be your responsibility or the responsibility of an agent acting on your behalf to divulge that you were still under contract to your former employers.

If the employer knew I was contracted to a rival for the following year, I think they would be foolish to rely upon my representation that the employer WOULD release me. Not HAD released me but WOULD release me. If the employer subsequently acted in a manner that would be to its own detriment if the release was not granted then I think it's very unwise behavior.

 

[TimmyB]

Precisely. This due diligence rubbish is a smoke screen. Due diligence in regards to the release falls at the feet of the player and or his manager. If indeed they were given verbal assurance of a release, Humpty will be in trouble. But Doust really has no concerns here in regards to his actions.

If Doust had sought a written release, would the situation be different?

 

[TimmyB]

Oh, an alternative situation. If I go to an employer and tell them I am a solicitor admitted to practice, do you think the employer should ask to see my practicing certificate? Or is it sufficient to take me at my word.

 

[saints4ever]

If Doust had sought a written release, would the situation be different?

Yes it would be, bur the simple fact is a player is not required to have one for negotiations to begin it would seem, from any club, so why would he? Once terms are agreed to, it is up to player and agent to go back and finalize the release surely?
Dousts job was done, he signed his man with the unserstanding the release would be granted. As he and every other CEO has done

 

[TimmyB]

Yes it would be, bur the simple fact is a player is not required to have one for negotiations to begin it would seem, from any club, so why would he? Once terms are agreed to, it is up to player and agent to go back and finalize the release surely?
Dousts job was done, he signed his man with the unserstanding the release would be granted. As he and every other CEO has done

If Doust had simply picked up the phone and called Humphries the scenario would be different.

I'm glad we agree on this.

 

[Bang]

If the employer knew I was contracted to a rival for the following year, I think they would be foolish to rely upon my representation that the employer WOULD release me. Not HAD released me but WOULD release me. If the employer subsequently acted in a manner that would be to its own detriment if the release was not granted then I think it's very unwise behavior.

Whilst it would be considered best practice to have a written release or to confirm the release with the former employer it is not legally required. The Dragons can rely on what was told to them by Moltzen and his manger (Which is common and accepted practice in the NRL).
Further to that if the Dragons entered into a contract with Moltzen and part of reason they entered into that contract was information provided by Moltzen or his representative and that information turns out to be misleading or false then the Dragons have a couple of options.

1 They can terminate the contract without recourse from Moltzen or 2 if they have been disadvantaged by the misleading or false information then they are able to claim damages against Moltzen and or his agent.

 

[Dragons01]

If Doust had simply picked up the phone and called Humphries the scenario would be different.

I'm glad we agree on this.

So are we really expected to believe that everytime a club signs a new player they ring the CEO of the other club? Anyway Doust did speak to Humphries and that is when Humphries expressed his disappointment with the timing of the announcement.

Why would Humphries let Sheens and the players think Moltzen was gone and let them speak to the media stating that if in fact Humphries knew all along that Moltzen was never leaving the Tigers because he was never given a verbal release?

 

[R2Coupe]

Read Humphreys words carefully

''St George Illawarra have expressed their view on specific events in relation to Tim Moltzen, and a broader view of the way these things generally get done,'' he said. ''We at Wests Tigers have a very different view of both items.

The release was conditional. Humphreys expected a process to be followed in accordance with Wests Tigers business. This wasn't done and is reflected in his statement at the time.

 

[Dragons01]

Conditional on what - and why do Saints or any other club have to do business in accordance with the way the West Tigers do it?

It still does not clear up the fact that
1: Humphries has sat on this for 3 months and let it get to this stage.
2: He also let the West Tigers coach and players believe and speak to the media about Moltzen being gone. Hence Tim Sheens comment 'everyone knew Timmy was gone'. Tim Sheens as head coach would be the one telling the club who he wanted to keep and who he wanted to let go surely.
3: Humphries speaking to the media only last week stating that Moltzen will be at the Dragons in 2012.

When Moltzen spoke to the media and said he was glad his future was all sorted and he could now just concetrate on his footy this year(2011) with the Tigers, why was Humphries letting him do that and not correcting him if as Humphries now says Moltzens future is far from sorted.

 

[TimmyB]

Conditional on what - and why do Saints or any other club have to do business in accordance with the way the West Tigers do it?

It still does not clear up the fact that
1: Humphries has sat on this for 3 months and let it get to this stage.
2: He also let the West Tigers coach and players believe and speak to the media about Moltzen being gone. Hence Tim Sheens comment 'everyone knew Timmy was gone'. Tim Sheens as head coach would be the one telling the club who he wanted to keep and who he wanted to let go surely.
3: Humphries speaking to the media only last week stating that Moltzen will be at the Dragons in 2012.

When Moltzen spoke to the media and said he was glad his future was all sorted and he could now just concetrate on his footy this year(2011) with the Tigers, why was Humphries letting him do that and not correcting him if as Humphries now says Moltzens future is far from sorted.

You don't have to do business our way if you don't want to. But remember, you wanted something from us - the release of Moltzen. If you did business the way we do business, you'd probably have a better shot at doing this.

Humphries is entitled to sit on it for three months. We owe you nothing. When are Dragons' fans going to realise this?

 

[18to87]

You don't have to do business our way if you don't want to. But remember, you wanted something from us - the release of Moltzen. If you did business the way we do business, you'd probably have a better shot at doing this.

Humphries is entitled to sit on it for three months. We owe you nothing. When are Dragons' fans going to realise this?

So basically you are ok with your teams word (on many instances pointed out above) being worth sh*t all? Goes without saying that every team in the NRL is going to be afraid of dealing with the Tigers in the future.

 

[Gus22]

Bottom line is that due to changed circumstances (ie Lui's likely departure), Wests are now exploiting a loophole in the Moltzen/Dragons deal. The loophole is there because Doust signed a player without a written official release.

Wests are entitled to look after their own interests and are doing so because it is legal if not exactly ethical.

This mess was created by Doust beacuse he assumed rather than ensured a release was forthcoming.

 

[Guvner]

Oh, an alternative situation. If I go to an employer and tell them I am a solicitor admitted to practice, do you think the employer should ask to see my practicing certificate? Or is it sufficient to take me at my word.

I think the Dragons were well aware that Tim Moltzen was in fact a Rugby League player. FFS.

 

[TimmyB]

I think the Dragons were well aware that Tim Moltzen was in fact a Rugby League player. FFS.

The point is that employers do not rely upon the representations of employees. It's folly to do so and you end up in situations like this.

 

[Guvner]

Bottom line is that due to changed circumstances (ie Lui's likely departure), Wests are now exploiting a loophole in the Moltzen/Dragons deal. The loophole is there because Doust signed a player without a written official release.

Wests are entitled to look after their own interests and are doing so because it is legal if not exactly ethical.

This mess was created by Doust beacuse he assumed rather than ensured a release was forthcoming.

Nope. This mess has been created by either a) Tauber and Moltzen lying to Doust and the Dragons about the verbal agreement to release or b) Humpty renegging on the verbal agreement to release. All Doust did was take Moltzen's legally appointed agent at his word that the release had been agreed to. I think it is quite clear that it had been. Now its just a matter of how far things go. If it goes as far as court, Tauber and Moltzen will have no choice but to testify that a verbal agreement to release was given. Otherwise they will be in serious trouble for misleading the Dragons on this.

 

[Guvner]

The point is that employers do not rely upon the representations of employees. It's folly to do so and you end up in situations like this.

Unless of course there is a legally appointed agent mediating the process. Say.... Martin Tauber. Then messes like this shouldnt happen. Unless someone starts telling porky's.