Tim Moltzen ... (war is over)

[Father Ted]

St George have said that they have a contract with Moltz for 2012

St George have said that they have a contract with Gasnier for 2012

Neither want to play for them.

Go back to your lego bricks please

 

[andrew9148]

Can't be....surely got to be an act. Reading through his thoughts on this in several threads.....I reckon my goldfish would be a chance of taking him in any brainpower test.

Do you reckon your gold fish would be challenged by people revealing what they do for a living like you are?

We are talking about a legal issue. If we were talking about plumbing, and someone said they were a plumber would you feel so threatened?

Re Gasnier, I thought it was obvious I was taking the piss. ITs an example of people not fulfilling their contracts. But he didnt really have a contract anymore as both parties were happy to let it go.

 

[andrew9148]

Go back to your lego bricks please

Everything I said in that thread is true. you are the one who needs to eat IQ flakes for breakfast.

 

[Father Ted]

Everything I said in that thread is true. you are the one who needs to eat IQ flakes for breakfast.

Well as no here is going to agree what are trying to archieve Mr I Q Flake?

 

[andrew9148]

Ted - this is what I said? Which statement is incorrect??

St George have said that they have a contract with Moltz for 2012

St George have said that they have a contract with Gasnier for 2012

Neither want to play for them.

ARe you saying Ted that noone on here will agree with that?

 

[redvwhite]

The sky is blue.

I am alive.

Australia is a country.


I'm getting the hang of this...


So what's your point. One player screwed us over and the other did us a favour.

 

[muzby]

Ted - this is what I said? Which statement is incorrect??

St George have said that they have a contract with Moltz for 2012

St George have said that they have a contract with Gasnier for 2012

Neither want to play for them.

ARe you saying Ted that noone on here will agree with that?

you do realise the big hole in your argument is the intent of the players in question.

both players had signed their intent to play in 2012.

gasnier doesn't want to play for the dragons or anyone else. he is walking away and the dragons are happy for him to do this - both parties agree that the contract should end.

moltzen is now saying (apparently) that he doesn't want to play for the dragons and he wants to play for a competitor in the competition.

pretty simple really...

 

[Father Ted]

Ted - this is what I said? Which statement is incorrect??

St George have said that they have a contract with Moltz for 2012

St George have said that they have a contract with Gasnier for 2012

Neither want to play for them.

ARe you saying Ted that noone on here will agree with that?

Have you found your agreeable Dragon yet.:crazy:

 

[andrew9148]

The sky is blue.

I am alive.

Australia is a country.


I'm getting the hang of this...


So what's your point. One player screwed us over and the other did us a favour.

You got it

 

[love my saints]

Andrew ur a goose..... F&@k off to that scum forum that came from u waste of breath!!! After reading the article in the smh, I think we should go all out to get that weasel moltzen to play for us for 3 years and throw the worm in park footy for the 3 year duration!!!! Wtf is up with these gaybo players, Boyd has his head up bennetts ass, now this turkey has his head up benjis ass, u signed the contract u worm, now be a man and honor it!!! Straight to dapto canaries for 3 years for u sunshine!!!!!

 

[andrew9148]

you do realise the big hole in your argument is the intent of the players in question.

both players had signed their intent to play in 2012.

gasnier doesn't want to play for the dragons or anyone else. he is walking away and the dragons are happy for him to do this - both parties agree that the contract should end.

moltzen is now saying (apparently) that he doesn't want to play for the dragons and he wants to play for a competitor in the competition.

pretty simple really...

There is no whole. All I said in the quote was both players dont want to play for dragons in 2012. I didnt get into the circumstances.

You are not even disputing that. Like old mate said, I am saying the equivalent of the sky is blue and Australia is a country.

BUT Gasnier not playing on has caused you more problems than Moltzen not coming.

 

[andrew9148]

Andrew ur a goose..... F&@k off to that scum forum that came from u waste of breath!!! After reading the article in the smh, I think we should go all out to get that weasel moltzen to play for us for 3 years and throw the worm in park footy for the 3 year duration!!!! Wtf is up with these gaybo players, Boyd has his head up bennetts ass, now this turkey has his head up benjis ass, u signed the contract u worm, now be a man and honor it!!! Straight to dapto canaries for 3 years for u sunshine!!!!!

You dont even like a player and a coach who won you your first ever comp. Great supporter.

 

[andrew9148]

Have you found your agreeable Dragon yet.:crazy:

2.

 

[Father Ted]

Life's too short

 

[Willow]

There is no whole.

:lol:

 

[Willow]

So you agree that if Saints broke the contract, Timmy would have grounds for compensation. Good, that's all you have to admit to.

If there is a legally binding contract with Saints yes. But I suspect that there would be a term in the contract that says something like that the contract can only be relied upon by the parties once it is registered with the NRL. And that hasnt happened.

In other words, you're playing guesswork. Did he or did he not sign a contract with Saints?

Why doesnt Gasnier honour the contract he signed for 2012 and beyond?

Irrelevant. Gasnier has never broken a contract. He paid his dues, sought a release and retired. You're just clutching at straws now.

Gasnier chose not to fulfil his contract. One which was legally binding. St George chose not to hold him to it.

LOL! Do you even understand the basic concept of 'legally binding'?

If both parties agree to end an agreement then it is perfectly legal.

You really have no idea. Try to stick to things that you know about... thin as that may be.


I'll say this for WT, if they wanted Saints fans to turn on Timmy, they did a good job with his 'bawling my eyes out' comment to the media yesterday.

Quite frankly, the worst punishment I can think of for Timmy is to make him play for the Tigers, and have idiots like andrew cheer for him.

 

[Minh]

Tigers told Moltzen to get nicked when he wasn't playing well and sat on it waiting until he started to play well they suddenly looked to do the shifty no clearance Bullsh#t. Moltzen is a good player, not an elite player can't wait till we sort it all out and just move on instead of dealing with such losers and scum.

 

[andrew9148]

In other words, you're playing guesswork. Did he or did he not sign a contract with Saints?

Irrelevant. Gasnier has never broken a contract. He paid his dues, sought a release and retired. You're just clutching at straws now.
LOL! Do you even understand the basic concept of 'legally binding'?

If both parties agree to end an agreement then it is perfectly legal.

You really have no idea. Try to stick to things that you know about... thin as that may be.


I'll say this for WT, if they wanted Saints fans to turn on Timmy, they did a good job with his 'bawling my eyes out' comment to the media yesterday.

Quite frankly, the worst punishment I can think of for Timmy is to make him play for the Tigers, and have idiots like andrew cheer for him.

I cannot believe how stupid you are. Seriously the other people on here are limited but you can actually string a sentence together and are an imbecile.

Re Gasnier you are agreeing with me!! He had a legally binding contract and he and St George said that they were happy for the contract to end. You say the same thing, yet say I am wrong??? Do you know how stupid that is???

 

[andrew9148]

I cannot believe how stupid you are. Seriously the other people on here are limited but you can actually string a sentence together and are an imbecile.

Re Gasnier you are agreeing with me!! He had a legally binding contract and he and St George said that they were happy for the contract to end. You say the same thing, yet say I am wrong??? Do you know how stupid that is???

Regarding NRL contracts, I have seen one, a long time ago. 2001 I think it was. I have also seen AFL contracts.

I cant recall exactly but there is something in them which says something about the contract being void if it is unable to be registered with the NRL. It makes sense. It protects the clubs. Is that in simple enough language?

 

[Willow]

Haha! Quoting yourself to convince yourself. Desperate.

I obviously hit you where it hurts.

Tell us again how two parties agreeing to end a contract is breaking a contract.

andrew, stick with your desk job. Do the world a favour and don't get into serious law.