moltz staying

[Guvner]

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.

Not WOULD, but rather HAD. A verbal agreement in this instance would be binding. Tauber has been quoted publicly as saying a verbal agreement to release Moltzen HAD been given. Was he lying? I hope not for his sake. And if he wasnt, Humpty is.

 

[TimmyB]

We'll see what happens.

 

[TimmyB]

Not WOULD, but rather HAD. A verbal agreement in this instance would be binding. Tauber has been quoted publicly as saying a verbal agreement to release Moltzen HAD been given. Was he lying? I hope not for his sake. And if he wasnt, Humpty is.

Perhaps Humphries gave Moltzen permission to negotiate and Tauber interpreted that as a release. Who knows? You don't.

 

[TimmyB]

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.

Mediation implies some degree of neutrality. Tauber is not neutral. He's representing his client's interests.

Picture this. Humphries tells Tauber Moltzen should look at what else he can get out there. He doesn't intend this to effectuate an immediate release of Moltzen and in fact does not - after all, if Moltzen would still be entitled to his wages from the Tigers in 2012 if nothing else WAS out there. Tauber speaks with the Dragons and says Moltzen has been given permission to talk to other clubs. The Dragons think great, they agree a contract and Moltzen signs it. The Tigers think wtf, we hadn't agreed to a release, we just wanted him to see what his options were in case we did want to release him. Fast forward 3 months and we are in the position we are in now. The Tigers owe the Dragons nothing. Moltzen has foolishly signed a contract not realising his true position.

 

[innsaneink]

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?

I dont think they actually spoke, they may have, but from all the articles it seems like theyre both just going by others media statements.

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).

This seems to be the sticking point, the verbal agreement...there seems to be plenty of perry masons here, Im not one.
Plenny Tigers fans saying ''if I did business like this (verbal/ handshake/gents agreement) Id be broke"

Just how much weight does it have in a contract?
Humpty seems to think not much, Im leaning that way myself, not that I agree with what he's done.

 

[18to87]

Mediation implies some degree of neutrality. Tauber is not neutral. He's representing his client's interests.

Picture this. Humphries tells Tauber Moltzen should look at what else he can get out there. He doesn't intend this to effectuate an immediate release of Moltzen and in fact does not - after all, if Moltzen would still be entitled to his wages from the Tigers in 2012 if nothing else WAS out there. Tauber speaks with the Dragons and says Moltzen has been given permission to talk to other clubs. The Dragons think great, they agree a contract and Moltzen signs it. The Tigers think wtf, we hadn't agreed to a release, we just wanted him to see what his options were in case we did want to release him. Fast forward 3 months and we are in the position we are in now. The Tigers owe the Dragons nothing. Moltzen has foolishly signed a contract not realising his true position.

Ahhh Sheens said the boys (teammates) knew he was leaving.

 

[Dragons01]

Tim Sheens comes into play in this in a big way. As head coach you would safely assume it was him that first made noises about letting Moltzen go, unless he has no say at the Tigers about recruitment. It was also Tim Sheens that made the statement to the press that 'everybody knew Timmy was going'.
Where did Tim Sheens get the idea that Moltzen was going from or did he just make it up?

 

[andrew9148]

Tim Sheens comes into play in this in a big way. As head coach you would safely assume it was him that first made noises about letting Moltzen go, unless he has no say at the Tigers about recruitment. It was also Tim Sheens that made the statement to the press that 'everybody knew Timmy was going'.
Where did Tim Sheens get the idea that Moltzen was going from or did he just make it up?

Although tim probably has the main say in who comes and goes it's not part of his duties to be negotiating releases and paper work. He is the coach. They do the coaching . Other well paid people do the recruiting and signing. Look at tge storm . They were over the caP . They sig
Had all these interesting contracts. It was nothing to do with Bellamy. Apparently .

 

[tumblingdice]

Tim Sheens comes into play in this in a big way. As head coach you would safely assume it was him that first made noises about letting Moltzen go, unless he has no say at the Tigers about recruitment. It was also Tim Sheens that made the statement to the press that 'everybody knew Timmy was going'.
Where did Tim Sheens get the idea that Moltzen was going from or did he just make it up?

Tim Sheens is a wily hand when it comes to playing the media. We know its all a game, much the reason Bennett didn't give them the time of day, he was a wily old hand as well, but just in a different way. Mid season there was obviously a lot of media talk and the subsequent standard innuendos, which visibly upset Sheens -any unwanted media attention im sure the (and any) club likes to avoid or deflect, whether they have substance or not.

Sheens just gave them the answer they were expecting to shut them up, which they did and moved onto the next story. Then things went very well for the team. The club remained quiet while there was a campaign at hand and a premiership a possibility.

And for the reason Timmy B pointed out above:-"' we just wanted him to see what his options were in case we did want to release him. Fast forward 3 months and we are in the position we are in now. The Tigers owe the Dragons nothing. Moltzen has foolishly signed a contract not realising his true position.""

And maybe thats what happened. All we really know here is that not one person here knows really what happened. And if thats what happened, it was just business strategy, and probably a good one at that, albeit it cunningly ruthless, but unfortunately for the Dragons, at their expense. A CEO running a competitve business should have maybe anticipated all the permutations, and followed a basic checklist of procedures at least standard good business and contract practice.The only official statement the WT made was that there was no release. Then complete silence. From a legal point of view the club or players are not official spokemen for the club when it comes to anything to do with palyer retention and player contracts, apart from their own, and are expressing their personal opinions or their own roles, so what they say is ultimately on no legal consequence, although you'd like to be able to believe them. Remember no official mention from the club of Moltzen going ever.And no release. Another hint for a competent CEO to ensure his own dilligence. So sue away.

So maybe Humphreys just did what he had to do at the expense of Doust and your club. He did engineer and a manage a fairly large player exodus which isn't easy and the club still did well.He's obviously not interested in popularity polls.

Dont take it personal Saints fans, its just business. If it wasn't you guys, may well have been another club.

 

[37916319]

It's clear that Moltzen does not want to go to the Dragons by Doust's admission that neither he nor Tauber had taken his calls for an extended period which raises another question.

If Moltzen says I'm not playing for Dragons, which he is entitled to as his signed contract with them is not legal yet and his only registered contract is with the Tigers than wouldn't they be liable to pay it out and if that's the case than its in the Tigers best interest to hold onto him as a player and get the full value out of his final years salary.

 

[andrew9148]

http://m.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby...to-roll-again-with-tigers-20111014-1lp4j.html

Tim wants to stay a tiger. Gee saints must be terrible club. Boyd Bennett smith costigan gasnier all walking out

 

[Dragon]

haha you are stuck with him

oh and pay us compensation, thx

 

[vookie]

Why would we pay you compensation?

 

[Guvner]

Lawyer up Tim, Tauber, Tigers.

 

[Dragons01]

''I'm disappointed the way it's all been played out in the media,'' Moltzen said. ''I'm obviously disappointed that the clubs happen to be in the position they're in, arguing. I definitely didn't want it to play out the way it has and get to where it's got.''

How old is he 10, did he really think Saints would go 'okay Timmy you gave us your word and signature but hey that's okay you do what you want'. Fair dinkum.

Tim Moltzen by the sounds of things needs to realise that in a big persons world, you can't sign a contract and more importantly give your word about something because things at the time are not to good at your club and then 3 months later just change your mind and hope you don't upset anyone. That's not how the real world works.

By his own admission Tim is now saying he didn't mean to mislead anyone - well Timmy boy I hope for you and your managers sake that you didn't 'mislead' anyone because if you and your manager did you are going to be in a fair bit of trouble.

Imagine if every player had a change of heart and just decided to not honour a contract with their new club? The Tigers encouraging him to go back on his word and his signature with Saints are just as bad.

 

[Jubileeboy]

http://m.brisbanetimes.com.au/rugby...to-roll-again-with-tigers-20111014-1lp4j.html

Tim wants to stay a tiger. Gee saints must be terrible club. Boyd Bennett smith costigan gasnier all walking out

Good post dickhead.

The only truth in it relates to your link.

Your club has sunk to Melbourne like depths.

 

[N.C.]

''I'm disappointed the way it's all been played out in the media,'' Moltzen said. ''I'm obviously disappointed that the clubs happen to be in the position they're in, arguing. I definitely didn't want it to play out the way it has and get to where it's got.''

How old is he 10, did he really think Saints would go 'okay Timmy you gave us your word and signature but hey that's okay you do what you want'. Fair dinkum.

Tim Moltzen by the sounds of things needs to realise that in a big persons world, you can't sign a contract and more importantly give your word about something because things at the time are not to good at your club and then 3 months later just change your mind and hope you don't upset anyone. That's not how the real world works.

By his own admission Tim is now saying he didn't mean to mislead anyone - well Timmy boy I hope for you and your managers sake that you didn't 'mislead' anyone because if you and your manager did you are going to be in a fair bit of trouble.

Imagine if every player had a change of heart and just decided to not honour a contract with their new club? The Tigers encouraging him to go back on his word and his signature with Saints are just as bad.

Dude he's been raised in the NRL community. That's why he doesn't know what a contract means... But maybe one day you'll get over it. Would money help?

 

[cookie145]

Wow, Tim a leopard never changes its spots. They do it to you once they'll do it to you again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone with half a brain would have known Loui would be a repeat offender and short term why release Moltzen to start with!!!!!

 

[andrew9148]

''I'm disappointed the way it's all been played out in the media,'' Moltzen said. ''I'm obviously disappointed that the clubs happen to be in the position they're in, arguing. I definitely didn't want it to play out the way it has and get to where it's got.''

How old is he 10, did he really think Saints would go 'okay Timmy you gave us your word and signature but hey that's okay you do what you want'. Fair dinkum.

Tim Moltzen by the sounds of things needs to realise that in a big persons world, you can't sign a contract and more importantly give your word about something because things at the time are not to good at your club and then 3 months later just change your mind and hope you don't upset anyone. That's not how the real world works.

By his own admission Tim is now saying he didn't mean to mislead anyone - well Timmy boy I hope for you and your managers sake that you didn't 'mislead' anyone because if you and your manager did you are going to be in a fair bit of trouble.

Imagine if every player had a change of heart and just decided to not honour a contract with their new club? The Tigers encouraging him to go back on his word and his signature with Saints are just as bad.

He is going to play for St George, or he is going to play for Tigers. He is not going to be in any trouble. He has just had a week in Vegas and has two clubs fighting for him. He is fine.

 

[andrew9148]

Good post dickhead.

The only truth in it relates to your link.

Your club has sunk to Melbourne like depths.

Things must be bad when St George cant even get a Gasnier to stay at St George. And Morris is going to join his brother at the dogs, you heard it here first. Its a walk out baby.