Rumoured and Confirmed Signings - XXV

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

If Gutherson has actually signed with us, it suggests it's fairly likely that the parties will settle out of court. So we might not get to discover which days Will wanted to play on.

I guess, if we play 25% of our games on Sundays, and we offered to pay him 75% of the amount initially offered, all would be hunky dory.

 

[Twizzle]

And everything posted over there is very accurate.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

And everything posted over there is very accurate.

As I said in my post most of it is crap but there is a couple of posters that seem to be reliable with their info. But yes lot of crap.

 

[Chipmunk]

If Gutherson has actually signed with us, it suggests it's fairly likely that the parties will settle out of court. So we might not get to discover which days Will wanted to play on.

I guess, if we play 25% of our games on Sundays, and we offered to pay him 75% of the amount initially offered, all would be hunky dory.

Irrespective of whether or not there is a signed contract by either party, I dare say the club doesn't want to be in a position where the former CEO can reveal a whole number of matters in a public forum like a court of law.

They will be settling.

 

[84 Baby]

Or do they reckon that nobody from our club signed it?

At the end of the day that probably doesn't matter either. We probably drafted the contract, we were making the offer and Seward was probably purported to be acting with authority. Those facts have probably already been determined. The issue I reckon to be decided is whether contract acceptance outweighs the likely clause about NRL ratification, i.e. when contract is enforceable. We're unlikely to be successful with arguments about contract amount or Seward acting outside powers

 

[emjaycee]

Personally I don't think it will be an NRL issue - simply a civil case regarding a contract dispute whereby both parties entered into an agreement in good faith and one of the parties (i.e. the club) wishes to withdraw from the agreement.

The court will decide whether or not they will allow them to withdraw (which no doubt they will) and then what damages the club needs to pay for said withdrawal.

 

[Gronk]

Irrespective of whether or not there is a signed contract by either party, I dare say the club doesn't want to be in a position where the former CEO can reveal a whole number of matters in a public forum like a court of law.

They will be settling.

Yeah nah. If you have skeletons in your closet you don't let it get this far.

 

[Gronk]

Personally I don't think it will be an NRL issue - simply a civil case regarding a contract dispute whereby both parties entered into an agreement in good faith and one of the parties (i.e. the club) wishes to withdraw from the agreement.

The court will decide whether or not they will allow them to withdraw (which no doubt they will) and then what damages the club needs to pay for said withdrawal.

And if compensation is paid, the NRL will need to decide if it should form part of our cap going forward.

Wonder if a situation like this has occurred before and how the NRL ruled on it ?

 

[Gronk]

At the end of the day that probably doesn't matter either. We probably drafted the contract, we were making the offer and Seward was probably purported to be acting with authority. Those facts have probably already been determined. The issue I reckon to be decided is whether contract acceptance outweighs the likely clause about NRL ratification, i.e. when contract is enforceable. We're unlikely to be successful with arguments about contract amount or Seward acting outside powers

Yep. Did you see my ^^ link above about Taka ? When he got shafted by the Tigers, reports in the paper said that Taka had signed a contract. How did the Tigers get away with not registering his new 3 year contract ? Wasn't the Tigers Board at the time hand picked by the NRL ?

 

[emjaycee]

And if compensation is paid, the NRL will need to decide if it should form part of our cap going forward.

Wonder if a situation like this has occurred before and how the NRL ruled on it ?

Gronk, I am hearing that the NRL will probably stay clear and not assess it against our cap.

Hopefully this is the outcome and the Board and management learn a lesson (even if an expensive one) about ensuring correct governance is in place when player contracts are done.

 

[Twizzle]

Yep. Did you see my ^^ link above about Taka ? When he got shafted by the Tigers, reports in the paper said that Taka had signed a contract. How did the Tigers get away with not registering his new 3 year contract ? Wasn't the Tigers Board at the time hand picked by the NRL ?

from what I recall about 3 of them were appointed by the NRL, or something like that but not the whole board

 

[Noise]

Yep. Did you see my ^^ link above about Taka ? When he got shafted by the Tigers, reports in the paper said that Taka had signed a contract. How did the Tigers get away with not registering his new 3 year contract ? Wasn't the Tigers Board at the time hand picked by the NRL ?

I think the difference is that Taka was happy to forego the Tigers contract because he was happy with what Parra offered. Hoppa on the other hand is digging his heals in because (most likely) he can't get another similar offer from another club to our original one.

 

[Noise]

Gronk, I am hearing that the NRL will probably stay clear and not assess it against our cap.

Hopefully this is the outcome and the Board and management learn a lesson (even if an expensive one) about ensuring correct governance is in place when player contracts are done.

If what you think might happen actually happens (i.e. We pay Hoppa out and it doesn't count against the cap) then it sets a dangerous precedent for rich clubs to offer big money early in the year, then pull the offer or reduce it when clubs have their rosters full knowing that if the player gets pissed off and goes to court then the payout won't be effecting the salary cap. Or they get said player on the reduced amount

 

[forward pass]

Always a great sight seeing recruits wearing our colours. Reminds me of the day I first saw Carl Webb in Blue and gold - brings a tear to the eye.

 

[Gronk]

I think the difference is that Taka was happy to forego the Tigers contract because he was happy with what Parra offered. Hoppa on the other hand is digging his heals in because (most likely) he can't get another similar offer from another club to our original one.

Hoppa is digging his heels in also because he is out of pocket from the last contract like Sandow was. His Spags arranged TPA did not pay either.

?Hoppa has come back from a mission, he has got married and he has been owed a lot of money,? the source tells RLW.

Fairfax Media reported in June that Hopoate was owed six-figures from failed third-party arrangements with the club - SMH

 

[Joshuatheeel]

If what you think might happen actually happens (i.e. We pay Hoppa out and it doesn't count against the cap) then it sets a dangerous precedent for rich clubs to offer big money early in the year, then pull the offer or reduce it when clubs have their rosters full knowing that if the player gets pissed off and goes to court then the payout won't be effecting the salary cap. Or they get said player on the reduced amount

Probably depends on what the court decides but I doubt it would be as simple as pulling contract. I am sure if court determines there isn't a valid contract as it wasn't register with the NRL agents will make sure contracts are now lodged the minute they are signed. Even if Steward is determined to act outside his authority, agents will make sure contracts are signed by the chairman.

Also as we know it also doesn't help a clubs reputation either by f**king up contracts, agents won't deal with them.

 

[Chipmunk]

Gronk, I am hearing that the NRL will probably stay clear and not assess it against our cap.

Hopefully this is the outcome and the Board and management learn a lesson (even if an expensive one) about ensuring correct governance is in place when player contracts are done.

If the NRL isn't going to get involved and count this money against the salary cap, then we should just tell him to bugger off and find a new deal and we will just cover the difference and move on.

 

[Bigfella]

Hoppa is digging his heels in also because he is out of pocket from the last contract like Sandow was. His Spags arranged TPA did not pay either.

Lol lol

I thought you don't rely on media and wait for the whole story?

So are you saying the court case is to recover TPAS only and not to seek to enforce a contract allegedly offered by us to him?

Because that seems exceptionally far fetched.

I think his nose is primarily out of joint because we offered him a contract and which he accepted and which is now not being honoured.

 

[Gronk]

Lol lol

I thought you don't rely on media and wait for the whole story?

So are you saying the court case is to recover TPAS only and not to seek to enforce a contract allegedly offered by us to him?

Because that seems exceptionally far fetched.

I think his nose is primarily out of joint because we offered him a contract and which he accepted and which is now not being honoured.

I said he is digging is heels in ALSO ... f**kwit.

also
ˈɔːlsəʊ/
adverb
adverb: also
in addition; too

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Yep. Did you see my ^^ link above about Taka ? When he got shafted by the Tigers, reports in the paper said that Taka had signed a contract. How did the Tigers get away with not registering his new 3 year contract ? Wasn't the Tigers Board at the time hand picked by the NRL ?

From the discussion on the West Tigers forum at the time, Wests 'signed' Taka at a time that they had no head coach, and presumably it was understood by both sides of the deal that the contract needed to be ratified when the head coach position was finalised.

http://weststigersforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22613&start=18