The Latest in Coaching Musical Chairs - NRL Style...

[Tiger5150]

Not sure why it is relevant whether the club paid the contract in full? This would likely be covered by any contractual termination provisions. The issue I was referring to is job security for the individual.

Let me help you here. This is not covered by contract termination provisions, its covered by Contract Law. There is no such thing as "job security for the indvidual" under a Contract. There is simply consideration. One party commits to provide one thing and the other party commits to provide the other. There is no obligation under Contract Law for job security. There is a maximum term of the Contract and Consideration. If the contract is frustrated or if one party defaults on the Contract, the other party must receive their full consideration. In the case of a Coach and club its like this. The consideration the Club recieves is that the Coach will coach, professionally, to the best of his ability and within any performance criteria set into the contract. The Consideration the Coach receives is $XXXXXXX. If a club says goodbye to a coach and cant show that they breached a contract (via performace criteria) then the Coach receives his full consideration, as per Taylor & Sheens in your example.

Cleary signed agreed to coach Panthers following his current agreement with the Tigers i.e the period from when he is uncontracted. A contract specialist such as yourself is surely able to identify this delineation? There was no promise of Cleary being further employed by the Tigers so he can sign with whatever employer he likes from that time.

Possibly however it could be argued that he is not able to adequately meet the requirements of his Contract (the Clubs consideration, see above) in areas such as player recruitment and retention etc. In which case the Contract is frustrated. If the contract is frustrated by the actions of one party (Cleary) the other party is entitled to full consideration.

Not sure why Panthers need to give a f**k what one of their competitors think? They need to secure the resources they need to compete witg Storm, Roosters, Rabbits, Sharks, etc. No different to any other corporate environment.

Because it is illegal (Fines, deregistration. bankruptcy. gaol) for a third party to induce breach of contract. Thats a starting point, there are also many obvious ethical and moral issues as well that you can choose to accept or ignore. Gould and the Panthers actions once the Tigers called them on it speak pretty loudly that they were either aware of this or made aware by others.

Mate, it is what it is and I dont see the point in pretending otherwise. Penrith got their man. Do you really think this was about getting I Cleary or keeping N cleary? Total coincidence that this whole saga was sparked by Nathans signing?

 

[Abacus]

Schooled? Penrith are now paying for 3 coaches next year with arguably the worst one coaching them.

Yeah, but they've got the 1 they want. Now to win the 2019 premiership

 

[OldPanther]

I hear ya, Old Panther . . . like I said, if he didn't portray himself to be righteous and all that . . . nobody would probably give a F.
It is what it is.
He has painted himself into a corner, and the chances of him coming out of it looking and smelling good are slim at best.
If it happened to your club, under the same circumstances, you'd be feeling like us WT guys as well . . . though the few weeks passing and getting a coach with credentials lets me shrug the shoulders at the whole fkked up mess this has become.

I don't blame Tigers fans at all for their emotions in regards to all this. It's completely understandable.

 

[Tiger5150]

You could be right in which case why are the Tigers still bitching?

I dont think the Tigers (if you mean the board, Pascoe & Go) are still bitching. I think they are releasing enough information out into the media to show they are not a pushover and that they have made the best of a bad situation. its important that they show this to fans, potential recruits and players and I think its fair enough as it is not something of their own doing. Of course its probably galling to Penrith fans as it paints their management in a less than shining light but it is what it is.

 

[Tiger5150]

That's his problem. He would have to know he is now under more pressure than any coach in the game. If it doesn't work I won't care too much beyond the normal irritation of not being successful.

I don't look at anyone in the game these days as being some paragon of virtue. They only care about their bank account like the rest of us at work. It's not like the days when the players did it as a hobby.

and ^THIS^ is fair enough. This makes sense and I can get my head around this. Lets not protect our personal club supporting sensibilities and coat it in "well he needed job security" (by going to a club wher ehe was sacked for looking tired? Very secure). He was (together with his son in a big financial pudding that will be hard to separate) offered a metric shitload of $$$$. Just dont make up other crap.

 

[OldPanther]

Let me help you here. This is not covered by contract termination provisions, its covered by Contract Law. There is no such thing as "job security for the indvidual" under a Contract. There is simply consideration. One party commits to provide one thing and the other party commits to provide the other. There is no obligation under Contract Law for job security. There is a maximum term of the Contract and Consideration. If the contract is frustrated or if one party defaults on the Contract, the other party must receive their full consideration. In the case of a Coach and club its like this. The consideration the Club recieves is that the Coach will coach, professionally, to the best of his ability and within any performance criteria set into the contract. The Consideration the Coach receives is $XXXXXXX. If a club says goodbye to a coach and cant show that they breached a contract (via performace criteria) then the Coach receives his full consideration, as per Taylor & Sheens in your example.



Possibly however it could be argued that he is not able to adequately meet the requirements of his Contract (the Clubs consideration, see above) in areas such as player recruitment and retention etc. In which case the Contract is frustrated. If the contract is frustrated by the actions of one party (Cleary) the other party is entitled to full consideration.



Because it is illegal (Fines, deregistration. bankruptcy. gaol) for a third party to induce breach of contract. Thats a starting point, there are also many obvious ethical and moral issues as well that you can choose to accept or ignore. Gould and the Panthers actions once the Tigers called them on it speak pretty loudly that they were either aware of this or made aware by others.

Mate, it is what it is and I dont see the point in pretending otherwise. Penrith got their man. Do you really think this was about getting I Cleary or keeping N cleary? Total coincidence that this whole saga was sparked by Nathans signing?

The current media reports have Ivan paying the Tiger a few hundred grand so it would match your talk of contracts and what's required.

 

[Tiger5150]

I don't know why Tigers fans are still upset. They getting a better coach and in 18 months to 2 years time Gus will probably sack Ivan anyway. Then Tigers fans can rejoice.

Let me try to explain why we are upset. Tigers have been crap since 2011. We used to have a rubbish board. As a result when we didnt renew Mick Potters contract, Jason Taylor is the best we could attract. Tigers have made massive improvements, most notably to our financial structure and our board. As a result we grabbed Claery to replace Taylor and based on his words and the way the players reacted, it was a step forward. To have all of that thrown in your face because of another club is hard to swallow.

But yes, its a testament to the hard work by many within the club that after losing Cleary we are able to attract premiership winning coaches. Im more excited by the future than I was.

 

[Tiger5150]

When you get over your butthurt and take your Tigers lense off, you might consider "what Cleary did" was sign a contract for the period following his current contract. There was no guarantee from the Tigers that he would be extended past 2020, or even see out his current contract given Tigers management's recent track record.

He previously advised he intended to see out his Tigers contract. Signing with the Panthers wasn't going to prevent this. Did it put the Tigers in an awkward position - sure. Did he do anything other than what he thought best for the Tigers during his time there? I think no.

So why the constant bitching about how Ivan has wronged the Tigers - particularly if Madge is an upgrade? There were years of poor performance before Ivan inherited JT's clusterf**k, and the club is in a better position than when Ivan arrived - hence Go commenting on Ivan's positive impact.

Pascoe has recently stated that Cleary asked for a release 12-14 weeks ago. Does that answer your question?

 

[Tiger5150]

Re the Warriors, Cleary had previously advised them he would not extend in order to return to Sydney. Gus approached the Warriors to negotiate an early release.

Cleary was available after 2020 - so not contracted.

Tigers asked Sheens and Taylor to break contracts when it suited the Tigers.

Its not breaking a contract if the other party recieves full consideration. Cant you get this? If I enter a contract with you to look after my dogs for the next six years for $100,000 but then I decide I dont need it but so pay you the $ 100,000, the contract is not broken, its completed because you received your full consideration.

What happened when Gus decided Ivan Cleary was "tired"?

 

[Tiger5150]

Re the Warriors, Cleary had previously advised them he would not extend in order to return to Sydney. Gus approached the Warriors to negotiate an early release.

I see a pattern emerging....do you?

 

[Tiger5150]

If the Tigers seriously wanted the Clearys, they should have locked Ivan up long term. With all the media pressure, Nathan would likely have followed. The Tigers got caught with their pants down and Pascoe got schooled.

Based on the massive success so far?

 

[Tiger5150]

The current media reports have Ivan paying the Tiger a few hundred grand so it would match your talk of contracts and what's required.

When I saw that, it totally made sense. Of course its ultimately wrapped up in the compensation Cleary(s) are receiving from Penrith, but it makes total sense for it to come from Ivan.

 

[Abacus]

Let me help you here. This is not covered by contract termination provisions, its covered by Contract Law. There is no such thing as "job security for the indvidual" under a Contract. There is simply consideration. One party commits to provide one thing and the other party commits to provide the other. There is no obligation under Contract Law for job security. There is a maximum term of the Contract and Consideration. If the contract is frustrated or if one party defaults on the Contract, the other party must receive their full consideration. In the case of a Coach and club its like this. The consideration the Club recieves is that the Coach will coach, professionally, to the best of his ability and within any performance criteria set into the contract. The Consideration the Coach receives is $XXXXXXX. If a club says goodbye to a coach and cant show that they breached a contract (via performace criteria) then the Coach receives his full consideration, as per Taylor & Sheens in your example.

Thanks for this. I probably explained it poorly. By job security, i was referring to Cleary securing his future beyond 2020. Sorry to make to write most of that needlessly but appreciate the effort you've gone to.

Possibly however it could be argued that he is not able to adequately meet the requirements of his Contract (the Clubs consideration, see above) in areas such as player recruitment and retention etc. In which case the Contract is frustrated. If the contract is frustrated by the actions of one party (Cleary) the other party is entitled to full consideration.

Sounds subjective to me. It would depend on the requirements of Cleary as defined in the contract. Dangerous territory when recruitment/retention is coach-focused rather than club-focused but tis a sign of the times.

Because it is illegal (Fines, deregistration. bankruptcy. gaol) for a third party to induce breach of contract. Thats a starting point, there are also many obvious ethical and moral issues as well that you can choose to accept or ignore. Gould and the Panthers actions once the Tigers called them on it speak pretty loudly that they were either aware of this or made aware by others.

Not sure signing a coach/player for a term commencing after their current contractual commitment constitutes inducement. Again, subjective so would need to be argued unless there is an established precedent.

If you're talking about the approach around the time of Griffin's sacking, agree that Panthers back-pedaled as the board member may have over-stepped the mark. I don't think Gus was involved in the initial approach but had the job of facing the media.

Mate, it is what it is and I dont see the point in pretending otherwise. Penrith got their man. Do you really think this was about getting I Cleary or keeping N cleary? Total coincidence that this whole saga was sparked by Nathans signing?

My theory is that Gus wanted Cleary to be a long term Panthers coach the first time around but the rebuild took longer than expected and took its toll on Ivan. I think Gus has a soft spot for Ivan after their time at the Roosters. Now that the squad is built, I think Gus is happy to have Ivan back. Does it help Ivan that his son is the NSW halfback and has stated he wants to be coached by his Dad? Absolutely. I think a few clubs were keen to get the Cleary package. Did the Panthers want Nathan going to another club (Tigers or otherwise)? Definitely not. So, not all about NC but certainly a key factor.

 

[Abacus]

I dont think the Tigers (if you mean the board, Pascoe & Go) are still bitching. I think they are releasing enough information out into the media to show they are not a pushover and that they have made the best of a bad situation. its important that they show this to fans, potential recruits and players and I think its fair enough as it is not something of their own doing. Of course its probably galling to Penrith fans as it paints their management in a less than shining light but it is what it is.

Nah, my comment was more with Benny's smokescreen (which admittedly most Tigers fans acknowledge) and then Brasher this morning. More interested in seeking pity than getting on with reality.

I've already said Penrith's focus should be on doing what is needed to challenge the big clubs. That will mean making decisions that won't keep everybody happy.

 

[Tiger5150]

Not sure signing a coach/player for a term commencing after their current contractual commitment constitutes inducement. Again, subjective so would need to be argued unless there is an established precedent.

If you're talking about the approach around the time of Griffin's sacking, agree that Panthers back-pedaled as the board member may have over-stepped the mark. I don't think Gus was involved in the initial approach but had the job of facing the media.
.

The fact that Cleary asked for a release, at exactly the same time as....a) he had a meeting with Penrith chairman, b) his son was re-negotiating and re-signing his contract, c) Gus sacked Griffin , d) Gus says "we have one guy in mind, just waiting to hear back from him....pretty much points to inducement to break his contract but again it is what it is. Its not a crime that is going to cause empires to crumble. In the end things like this are left for competent people in charge to make the best of it. I am incredibly grateful that it seems we have good management for possibly the first time since inception.

FWIW, Im beginning to think that this was more Cleary's doing than Gus. Could be that Cleary went to Penrith with an ultimatum re his son and this unholy mess rolled out as a consequence. Thats what it points to to me.

 

[Abacus]

Pascoe has recently stated that Cleary asked for a release 12-14 weeks ago. Does that answer your question?

Not sure that is quite what he said - more to do with the position the Tigers were put in 12-14 weeks ago. But not sure which question you think that answers.

 

[Tiger5150]

Nah, my comment was more with Benny's smokescreen (which admittedly most Tigers fans acknowledge) and then Brasher this morning. More interested in seeking pity than getting on with reality.
.

Benny is a tool who has done more damage to the Tigers than Penrith and Gus could ever dream of causing. I actually spent a day with Benny once as we drank a heap of beer and he looked after Scotty Gale who was in the last stages of motor neurone disease like a silk worm. at the time I thought "everyone is wrong about Benny". A few years later I spent another evening with him at a charity fund raiser and I thought "Nah...he's a tool.". What he did to BLDRLC and by extension Wests Tigers reinforces it x 1000.

I've already said Penrith's focus should be on doing what is needed to challenge the big clubs. That will mean making decisions that won't keep everybody happy.

If its an AT ALL COSTS requirement to be competitive in the NRL (which based on the successful clubs being Storm/Brisbane/Roosters it seems to be) then it reinforces everything I think is wrong with Rugby League and will ultimately be the cause of my leaving the game. It is already the reason my sons no longer follow the game.

Enjoyed the discussion without resorting to stupidity FWIW.

 

[Tiger5150]

DELETE - Screwed up the quote trail so bad it was irreparable, and not worth it

 

[Abacus]

Its not breaking a contract if the other party recieves full consideration. Cant you get this? If I enter a contract with you to look after my dogs for the next six years for $100,000 but then I decide I dont need it but so pay you the $ 100,000, the contract is not broken, its completed because you received your full consideration.

What happened when Gus decided Ivan Cleary was "tired"?

Ah, no. A contract is completed when all commitments for each party have been fulfilled. A payout on termination is a settlement for loss of earnings because by committing to look after your dogs exclusively for the contracted term, its recognised that I now face a period without earnings due to your subsequent early termination. Particularly as remuneration in the case of NRL coaching is per annum, not a consolidated amount.

When Cleary got tired, Gus kindly ensured Ivan's family would be able to mange financially while Ivan got some rest.

 

[Abacus]

I see a pattern emerging....do you?

Yeah, Cleary really can't see out a deal. Not sure why Tigers fans thought it would be different for them.

Panthers fans already know IC won't make the full 5 years.