moltz staying

[Dragons01]

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.

Don't kid yourself Motlzen and his manager are not in trouble- if they mislead Saints and signed a contract knowing that he hadn't been given a verbal release they are in trouble, if not players could sign 2 or 3 contracts with different clubs and then say well I changed my mind.

As for 'everyone' leaving Saints - please is that all you've got. Players leave clubs all the time because of a little thing called the salary cap(see Melbourne). So now we turn it from a disagreement over a player to Saints are a mess, no-one wants to play for them bullshit. To be honest if this is how Moltzen conducts himself you can have him.

 

[innsaneink]

Don't kid yourself Motlzen and his manager are not in trouble- if they mislead Saints and signed a contract knowing that he hadn't been given a verbal release they are in trouble, if not players could sign 2 or 3 contracts with different clubs and then say well I changed my mind.

As for 'everyone' leaving Saints - please is that all you've got. Players leave clubs all the time because of a little thing called the salary cap(see Melbourne). So now we turn it from a disagreement over a player to Saints are a mess, no-one wants to play for them bullshit. To be honest if this is how Moltzen conducts himself you can have him.

LOL


You cant give something that was never yours to start with...:lol:

 

[Dragons01]

Funny how the super coach Tim Sheens saw nothing in Moltzen back in July and Moltzen was told to look around yet a rookie coach in Steve Price thought he was worth a shot, now all of a sudden he is worth a shot again by the Tigers.

Moltzen needs to contribute a fair whack of his wage to Robert Lui and his partner because that is the only reason the Tigers now see value in Moltzen.

 

[andrew9148]

Don't kid yourself Motlzen and his manager are not in trouble- if they mislead Saints and signed a contract knowing that he hadn't been given a verbal release they are in trouble, if not players could sign 2 or 3 contracts with different clubs and then say well I changed my mind.

As for 'everyone' leaving Saints - please is that all you've got. Players leave clubs all the time because of a little thing called the salary cap(see Melbourne). So now we turn it from a disagreement over a player to Saints are a mess, no-one wants to play for them bullshit. To be honest if this is how Moltzen conducts himself you can have him.

If he ends up at St George, how is he in trouble? He would presumably be fulfilling the contract St George say he has with them.

If he ends up at the Tigers, how is he in trouble? He would be fulfilling a contract that is registered to the NRL.

RE verbal release, I dont think there is any doubt that the Tigers gave him permission to negotiate with other clubs. I dont think anyone is denying the Tigers said they will release him. They just havent. And the reason they havent is that Moltz has said he does not want to go and Play for St George.



Dragons supporters (and others) might think he is dishonest. They might boo him. But he will not be 'in trouble'. He is not going to gaol. He is not going to be charged with any offence.

He has two clubs fighting over him and he has just returned from Vegas. He is fine.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

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.


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.

The problem with this line of thinking is, and the reason why it's common practice is because technically you cannot be contracted to two clubs at the same time. A player generally is not willing to get a release from a club before signing with another as this has the inherent risk of the player losing out on a contract for the next year. This is where verbals come in, unfortunately you do put alot of trust in the other parties to follow through, but verbals are still legally binding but much harder to dispute if problems arise.

Someone is at fault here... If Humphreys didn't give a verbal release, Moltzen and his agent are liable for punitive damages because they misrepresented themselves to the Dragons. If Humphreys did give the release then the Tigers are liable, and the interview with Moltzen today did himself no favours, some of his words were chosen very poorly and could get torn apart in a courtroom.

As doust said earlier in the week, we could actually do the same as the Tigers have done here with Boyd and Tagive as they are at exactly the same stage of the process.

 

[andrew9148]

LOL


You cant give something that was never yours to start with...:lol:

Gold.

 

[andrew9148]

The problem with this line of thinking is, and the reason why it's common practice is because technically you cannot be contracted to two clubs at the same time. A player generally is not willing to get a release from a club before signing with another as this has the inherent risk of the player losing out on a contract for the next year. This is where verbals come in, unfortunately you do put alot of trust in the other parties to follow through, but verbals are still legally binding but much harder to dispute if problems arise.

Someone is at fault here... If Humphreys didn't give a verbal release, Moltzen and his agent are liable for punitive damages because they misrepresented themselves to the Dragons. If Humphreys did give the release then the Tigers are liable, and the interview with Moltzen today did himself no favours, some of his words were chosen very poorly and could get torn apart in a courtroom.

As doust said earlier in the week, we could actually do the same as the Tigers have done here with Boyd and Tagive as they are at exactly the same stage of the process.

No punitive damages. Damages possibly.

I dont think Moltzen and his agent would cop it as its not their call. Its the Tigers call to release him.

 

[851]

The problem with this line of thinking is, and the reason why it's common practice is because technically you cannot be contracted to two clubs at the same time. A player generally is not willing to get a release from a club before signing with another as this has the inherent risk of the player losing out on a contract for the next year. This is where verbals come in, unfortunately you do put alot of trust in the other parties to follow through, but verbals are still legally binding but much harder to dispute if problems arise.

Someone is at fault here... If Humphreys didn't give a verbal release, Moltzen and his agent are liable for punitive damages because they misrepresented themselves to the Dragons. If Humphreys did give the release then the Tigers are liable, and the interview with Moltzen today did himself no favours, some of his words were chosen very poorly and could get torn apart in a courtroom.

As doust said earlier in the week, we could actually do the same as the Tigers have done here with Boyd and Tagive as they are at exactly the same stage of the process.

Boyd and Tagive are both off contract this year,Moltzen still has 1 year to run on here's,there is plenty of difference there,any how just take him please.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

No punitive damages. Damages possibly.

I dont think Moltzen and his agent would cop it as its not their call. Its the Tigers call to release him.

Works in the scenario where Moltzen and Tauber did not say that they had a release to the Dragons. Doust has already gone on record saying that they said they had a release. Either Doust is lying, Moltzen and his agent are lying or Humphreys was lying.

Either way, some is lying and someone is liable.

 

[andrew9148]

Works in the scenario where Moltzen and Tauber did not say that they had a release to the Dragons. Doust has already gone on record saying that they said they had a release. Either Doust is lying, Moltzen and his agent are lying or Humphreys was lying.

Either way, some is lying and someone is liable.

Liable for what do you reckon?

The chrononology is interesting I reckon. Tim gets told we cant guarantee you a deal for 2013 and beyond. Presumably he is told the Tigers will release him. He negotiates a deal with Dragons which is announced. As soon as it is announced, the Tigers say that they havent released him. BUT there are various statements made by Tigers people (basically those mentioned in Dousts media release) saying that Tim was leaving the Tigers.

Do we know what was said at the time of the negotiations when the supposed contract was entered into?

We know a stack of stuff was said afterwards.

But at the time, we dont know. Maybe it was in Dousts release. Not sure.

 

[innsaneink]

The problem with this line of thinking is, and the reason why it's common practice is because technically you cannot be contracted to two clubs at the same time. A player generally is not willing to get a release from a club before signing with another as this has the inherent risk of the player losing out on a contract for the next year. This is where verbals come in, unfortunately you do put alot of trust in the other parties to follow through, but verbals are still legally binding but much harder to dispute if problems arise.

Someone is at fault here... If Humphreys didn't give a verbal release, Moltzen and his agent are liable for punitive damages because they misrepresented themselves to the Dragons. If Humphreys did give the release then the Tigers are liable, and the interview with Moltzen today did himself no favours, some of his words were chosen very poorly and could get torn apart in a courtroom.

As doust said earlier in the week, we could actually do the same as the Tigers have done here with Boyd and Tagive as they are at exactly the same stage of the process.

Cheers...thats part of the picture I was unaware of, but yes it does make sense

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Liable for what do you reckon?

The chrononology is interesting I reckon. Tim gets told we cant guarantee you a deal for 2013 and beyond. Presumably he is told the Tigers will release him. He negotiates a deal with Dragons which is announced. As soon as it is announced, the Tigers say that they havent released him. BUT there are various statements made by Tigers people (basically those mentioned in Dousts media release) saying that Tim was leaving the Tigers.

Do we know what was said at the time of the negotiations when the supposed contract was entered into?

We know a stack of stuff was said afterwards.

But at the time, we dont know. Maybe it was in Dousts release. Not sure.

Doesn't matter what the timeline is... If at ANY point Humphreys said Moltzen had a release to his agent, the Tigers are liable. If that was never said, yet Tauber represented his client as having a verbal release, he and his client are liable. If Doust is lying the dragons don't have a leg to stand on.

Either way, someone is accountable, and Doust has gone on record in saying that a verbal release was given and that was relayed to the dragons via Tauber and Moltzen. The dragons are well within their right to sue and Moltzen will be the first target if that is how the story happened.

He can be sued for a whole lot of things, loss of income due to having an incomplete roster, breach of contract etc. He's gone on record in the media saying he signed a contract and doesn't want to honour it now. This does not play into his favour, and to be honest makes the case against him a hell of a lot easier. He would have been much better off replying with a "no comment"

 

[Tiger05]

Doesn't matter what the timeline is... If at ANY point Humphreys said Moltzen had a release to his agent, the Tigers are liable. If that was never said, yet Tauber represented his client as having a verbal release, he and his client are liable. If Doust is lying the dragons don't have a leg to stand on.

Either way, someone is accountable, and Doust has gone on record in saying that a verbal release was given and that was relayed to the dragons via Tauber and Moltzen. The dragons are well within their right to sue and Moltzen will be the first target if that is how the story happened.

He can be sued for a whole lot of things, loss of income due to having an incomplete roster, breach of contract etc. He's gone on record in the media saying he signed a contract and doesn't want to honour it now. This does not play into his favour, and to be honest makes the case against him a hell of a lot easier. He would have been much better off replying with a "no comment"

Why though are St's making such a big deal of it ?

Shouldn't they just let it go. If he doesn't want to go there why push it.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Why though are St's making such a big deal of it ?

Shouldn't they just let it go. If he doesn't want to go there why push it.

I don't want him in our colours. Ideally I'd love to see us win his services then say "here's a jersey for the helensburgh tigers, enjoy the next 3 years".

He's ruined our roster balance for next year by doing what he has, I'd say the club is arguing over it on principle and brand damage. The way the Tigers have conducted themselves on this matter is nothing short of disgusting to be honest.

 

[super_coach]

I don't want him in our colours. Ideally I'd love to see us win his services then say "here's a jersey for the helensburgh tigers, enjoy the next 3 years".

He's ruined our roster balance for next year by doing what he has, I'd say the club is arguing over it on principle and brand damage. The way the Tigers have conducted themselves on this matter is nothing short of disgusting to be honest.

What roster balance??? 17 plodders

 

[Dragons01]

Why though are St's making such a big deal of it ?

Shouldn't they just let it go. If he doesn't want to go there why push it.

As Firey said I think it has gone beyond that now, lets face it we are not arguing over a Cameron Smith.

From the time Saints signed Moltzen their whole recruitment for 2012 changed. They stopped looking for a replacement fullback for Boyd. If Moltzen had not signed Saints would have still gone on looking for a similar type player that was on the market. That window has now closed as most players are locked up for 2012. If Saints lose Moltzen they are down a player in their playing roster for 2012.

 

[andrew9148]

Doesn't matter what the timeline is... If at ANY point Humphreys said Moltzen had a release to his agent, the Tigers are liable. If that was never said, yet Tauber represented his client as having a verbal release, he and his client are liable. If Doust is lying the dragons don't have a leg to stand on.

Either way, someone is accountable, and Doust has gone on record in saying that a verbal release was given and that was relayed to the dragons via Tauber and Moltzen. The dragons are well within their right to sue and Moltzen will be the first target if that is how the story happened.

He can be sued for a whole lot of things, loss of income due to having an incomplete roster, breach of contract etc. He's gone on record in the media saying he signed a contract and doesn't want to honour it now. This does not play into his favour, and to be honest makes the case against him a hell of a lot easier. He would have been much better off replying with a "no comment"

How has anything the Tigers/Motlzen done caused St George to lose income?

Breach of contract? You have to have a legally enforceable one for that to happen. As I said before, I reckon there will be a term in it saying it would only be legally enforceable if registered (which it is not)

I am a lawyer. And I think you are right in that St George might be able to come up with a cause of action however, it would be extremely difficult to establish damages.

What St George would need is concrete proof of loss. What is the loss? THey can just go and sign another player. What is certain is that the costs of bringing any legal proceedings would outweigh any damages recovered.

Re him saying that he signed a contract and he doesnt want to go to Dragons - I dont think there is any doubt about that. No harm him saying it. If he wanted to go to the Dragons, there wouldnt be this dispute.

 

[Fingerbang]

I am a lawyer.

:lol: ....and I am Batman

 

[Tiger Crazy]

:lol: ....and I am Batman

Holy Moltzen's Batman he's staying at the same bat place same bat time same bat channel:lol:

 

[dragondad]

Boyd and Tagive are both off contract this year,Moltzen still has 1 year to run on here's,there is plenty of difference there,any how just take him please.

Boyd actually signed a new three year contract at the beginning of 2011. He wanted to leave if Wayne Bennett left, hence the need for a release. Tagive had another year left on his contract. Your information is incorrect.