Spitty said:
Kirk sueing the club in no where near as dog an act, as the club committed against him. Good on him and I'm sure the Knights will pay him in an out of court settlement, no level of RL would like this to go to court, it could set a dangerous precendent.
have some inside info you wish to share, spitty?
I have seen standard NRL contracts and am familiar with the Court's general approach to this type of dispute. Hell, ive even met Sir Laurence, the mediator who is looking after the mediation. Nice bloke.
IMO.... (and I have been wrong before)
The Knights will offer him something to go away. But if he presses and goes to Court he will be paying our costs, im pretty sure of that.
I severely doubt the Court would be willing to reach the conclusion that, in the sporting arena, contractual issues override the discretion of coaching staff to pick the best available team.
It is my understanding that due to the nature of the case it would not be the usual "objective" test but a "subjective" one that would be applied - namely he would have to prove that Smithy (as opposed to the "reasonable man" standard) refused to pick him solely, or largely, because of the contract issue.
Further, given his stats, his last performance, our relative health in the backrow and the discretion of the coach to 'look to the future'.... he would have to stand up and point the finger at one or more (ex) team mates, saying "I should have been picked before him"
who does he point the finger at there? international Steve Simpson? rising stars Cory Paterson and Zeb Taia? last-start MOM Jesse Royal?
good luck with that, Kirk....
