Turner Snubs Titans

[Raider_69]

Turner's big problem is that he ACTED as if he was contracted for a fairly long period of time. The court will look at that and it would be fatal I would think.

what?
on what legal grounds does the way he act's have anything to do with it?

if this were the case id act like i was contracted to the raiders for a few months and yeha! :lol:

 

[innsaneink]

Rumours of a deal to be done where another Storm player instead of Turner head up to the gold coast

 

[Inferno]

Hmm, I recall the Titans saying the only players they would swap in place of turner were Slater or Inglis. No chance of that happening though.

Perhaps Quin?

He may have already rubbed Bellamy the wrong way when he claimed he was grappled by Melbourne earlier this year.

 

[jc155776]

d) Two semester of law/contract law do not qualify you to "provide a legal" opinion this scenario.

Why not?

Apart from advance contract law there is nothing else left to study. And a lot of solicitors dont even complete that (it is an elective).

I have worked in a family owned firm doing research and para legal work and know what I am talking about.

Turners only chance is to try and have the contract deemd void under a restraint of trade clause. (Contracts cannot limit someones earning capacity in a simple explantion).

However the NRL can simply refuse not to register the contract and allow him to play. Storm can still pay him so there is no restraint of trade but he wont be able to step foot on the field.

 

[Marshall_magic]

watching some show similiar to the Main Game except it was on ESPN, the guys on it were Australian Sport people (forgot the names) he raised a very good point

If the Titans decided that they didn't want Turner, but he still wanted to play for them, what would of happened? Would Turner be allowed to play for them or would he get sent out to find a new club?

 

[jc155776]

They'd be stuck wityh him, just like any club with a sh*t player.

However, now he has renigged, they can do likewise.

 

[Balmain_Boy]

what?
on what legal grounds does the way he act's have anything to do with it?

if this were the case id act like i was contracted to the raiders for a few months and yeha! :lol:

If Canberra believed you had signed a contract and you were claiming you didn't, yet you had acted like you had a contract for the previous six months (and make statements to that effect) you don't think that suggests there was a contract?

I've forgotten what the authority is, but the Court is happy to impute that information.

 

[_Johnsy]

Why not?

Apart from advance contract law there is nothing else left to study. And a lot of solicitors dont even complete that (it is an elective).

I have worked in a family owned firm doing research and para legal work and know what I am talking about.

JC I have many years of practical/theoretical study in the field of horticulture and a degree in environmental science, however I would not have the audacity to proclaim I know enough about plant gentics to comment on a subject and expect it to be taken as factual. Bearing in mind that law and all its wonderful intricicies, ultimately depends on interpretations.

 

[cainen]

however I would not have the audacity to proclaim I know enough about plant gentics to comment on a subject and expect it to be taken as factual.

But if you'd studied plant genetics for 2 semesters then surely you would be able to make a well-informed statement on plant genetics...just like someone who has studied contract law should be able to on contracts. Otherwise, what is the point of studying it in the first place if you're not going to gain knowledge that you can apply to real life scenarios?

You mention in point d) the word 'opinion.' That is all people have been giving; their opinion. This is a footy forum. It's not like we're giving legal advice but surely someone who has actually studied contract law's opinion should be given a higher weighting than someone who hasnt.

 

[Misty Bee]

Unless Gregor Mendel is joining the titans....

 

[Balmain_Boy]

JC I have many years of practical/theoretical study in the field of horticulture and a degree in environmental science, however I would not have the audacity to proclaim I know enough about plant gentics to comment on a subject and expect it to be taken as factual. Bearing in mind that law and all its wonderful intricicies, ultimately depends on interpretations.

Audacity...that's a bit melodramatic don't you think?

People have merely been proffering their feelings on the way any action would go. Obviously there cannot be certain, but a person who has done contract law is better placed to comment than those who haven't!

 

[The_Savage_1]

Why not?

Apart from advance contract law there is nothing else left to study. And a lot of solicitors dont even complete that (it is an elective).

I have worked in a family owned firm doing research and para legal work and know what I am talking about.

Turners only chance is to try and have the contract deemd void under a restraint of trade clause. (Contracts cannot limit someones earning capacity in a simple explantion).

However the NRL can simply refuse not to register the contract and allow him to play. Storm can still pay him so there is no restraint of trade but he wont be able to step foot on the field.

:lol: You'll soon learn that theory means jack. Wait til you get in front of a chest beating Magistrate who completely ignores the legislation and/or precedent cases and decides the case depending on what side of the bed he gets out of

 

[_Johnsy]

But if you'd studied plant genetics for 2 semesters then surely you would be able to make a well-informed statement on plant genetics

Good point, the only problem is plant genetics is not dependant on one person interpreting two differing arguments. I see where you are coming from, but I disagree. Making a well informed decision is fine if you are privy to all factors that may determine the outcome. i am sure that even the titans and turner will see the one set of fators differently. Based on the information available I cannot understand how anyone can form a "legal" opinion, even with all of two semester under their belt.

 

[jc155776]

Yeah I can understand where you are coming from Johnsy.

Just seems on prima facae Turner is f**ked.

I am sure if it goes to court it will be taken care of accordingly but the Storm would it seems be taking a huge risk on someone not really worth it...

 

[_Johnsy]

As I said earlier in this thread, all it has achieved is making melbourne and turner look like a pack of twats. I suppose it is no surprise the child of Ribot has no integrity whatsoever.

 

[El Diablo]

looks like Turner is stuffed if he continues wanting to play for the Storm.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20775482-10389,00.html

NRL blocks Turner plan

Mick Daly

November 17, 2006 11:00pm

THE NRL will not allow renegade winger Steve Turner to play for Melbourne next season.
The NRL has revealed it will not allow Turner to line up for the Storm even if a court declares his verbal agreement with the Gold Coast Titans invalid.

The 22-year-old agreed to a three-year-deal with the Titans in July before backflipping in August and signing another contract with the Storm.

He has previously indicated he would take the NRL to court to remain with the Storm and avoid sitting on the sidelines until 2010.

But NRL boss David Gallop yesterday claimed the game's governing body had full power in determining Turner's playing future – irrespective of what a court ruled.

"There's a purely black and white legal side to it and there's a notion of fairness, of what's fair, side to it," Gallop said. "We'd need to consider that if there was a court decision.

"We've got absolute discretion to not register a contract so we haven't considered (the possibility of Turner staying with Melbourne)."

Asked if that meant the NRL could ignore a court's decision and force Turner to either play with the Titans or not at all, Gallop replied: "Yes but obviously we would look very carefully at any court decision."

Gallop admitted the matter would be detrimental to the game if it was played out through the courts.

But he insisted the NRL was not about to change its stance and said he had even offered to meet with Turner in an attempt to resolve it.

"Any time this sort of thing reaches the court it can be damaging. Litigation is very expensive and it is to be discouraged," Gallop said.

"We would certainly encourage (Turner) to accept that he entered into an agreement with the Titans.

"He went on television and radio and said how much he was looking forward to (joining the Titans)."

 

[1999]

i still cant get over why the titans want a player in their ranks that doesnt want to be there, not putting in the effort and dragging the rest of the team down, its a good side on paper as it is, why dont they just give him a release if he's going to be stubborn about it, i think the nrl are only stepping in coz the titans franchise is their major selling point for the game next season, if it was the tigers or some sh*tty team like that no one would get this sort of publicity over a player battle, especially a so so rookie winger, i just dont understand why they dont just give it a rest, give us some real f**kin footy news ey boys

 

[knights04]

Checkmate Turner. :lol:

 

[philstorm]

If the Courts were to rule in the Storms favour and the NRL still veto, could that be construed as a restraint of trade or something?

 

[innsaneink]

Looks like the Storm lose...again.
Becoming a habit.:lol: