Turner turns on Titans, Resigns with Storm

[NZ Warrior]

That is just a low, cheap shot from the Titans. You watch now, Gallop will go and side with them even though no rules were broken. :roll:

Please tell me you are joking. The Storm clearly handled this poorly. The Storm knew Turner had an agreement with the Titans and chose to proceed in a back-room ethics fashion. The finger has to be pointed at Turner too, he acted in an unethical fashion too.

I guess you could say, he pulled a "Wiki".

 

[philstorm]

Please tell me you are joking. The Storm clearly handled this poorly. The Storm knew Turner had an agreement with the Titans and chose to proceed in a back-room ethics fashion. The finger has to be pointed at Turner too, he acted in an unethical fashion too.

I guess you could say, he pulled a "Wiki".

How did the Storm handle this poorly?

Turner didn't sign anything. He approached the Storm asking to stay and they were happy to comply.

 

[Iafeta]

Referring to my comments in the NRL forum; contracts do NOT have to be in writing.

By legal definition, a contract may be:-

An employment agreement
An agreement for your 16 year old niece to babysit
Catching a cab
Buying McDonalds Big Mac
Filling up with petrol

... In most of those situations you would not sign a formal document. There is no need. In most of those situations requesting the good or service at the advertised price or at a reasonably understood market price, and the disclosed or 'reasonably aware' conditions of the 'contract' amount to a legally binding agreement. A formalised contract is ONLY written confirmation of an agreement with a signature that outlines performance criteria, termination clauses, conditions of employment, company policies etc. They are good, but they are NOT necessary.

In the case of an employment contract, depending on the judge etc., Gold Coast Titans would win.

Given the above, there is a legally binding contract in place on the basis of

David Riolo's email to the Gold Coast Titans confirming Turner's agreement - this is important as Turner 'contracts' Riolo as an accredited, and authorised representative on Turner's career plans

Secondly, the comments attributed to Steve Turner when he "signed" - note the word signed is loosely bandied around and is more a coloquialism these days as its not usually used in its right context. If Turner felt the comments regarding him "agreeing to terms" were wrong, it is his obligation to ask for the media outlets to retract those statements, within due course of a cooling off period.

Most 'contracts' have a cooling off period, but certainly two months is outside the parameters of that. Once you pass due diligence of the cooling off period, a contract should only be ruled null on void on:-

Agreement from both parties
Failure to perform as per the agreement
Breaking company policy/law

None of these has happened. I have seen a load of comments denegrating the Gold Coast Titan's actions as BS this, and BS that, if you run through the parameters of what a contract actually means and forget the physical mindset of a piece of paper (remembering things like taxi rides, buying maccas where clearly the "contract" is not formalised by paper) you will see they have every right to be somewhat frustrated. The other thing we as league fans take too much into context is the amount of broken contracts by clubs and players - we assume because it happens so regularly that either party (player or club) doesn't have rights to prevent premature breaking of the contract. Unless clauses/policies/law is sacrificed by continuing the contract, this is not true.

 

[Cloud9]

This is my ruling:

The contract between the Titans and Turner is an unenforceable contract. Although the verbal contract was valid, failure by the Titans to register the contract within 10 days in accordance with NRL conditions means the contract can not be enforced by the courts.

We also need a common sense approach to this. Both parties are now no longer in agreement and it is in their best interest to go seperate ways.

 

[Surandy]

This is my ruling:

The contract between the Titans and Turner is an unenforceable contract. Although the verbal contract was valid, failure by the Titans to register the contract within 10 days in accordance with NRL conditions means the contract can not be enforced by the courts.

We also need a common sense approach to this. Both parties are now no longer in agreement and it is in their best interest to go seperate ways.

This plus the fact that no contract was signed. What if Steve agreed to go to the Titans but then when the contract was put in front of him to sign he did not agree to the terms in the contract and therefore refused to sign the contract?

 

[Jasestorm]

In the days of workplace agreements this will get laughed out of court.

 

[NZ Warrior]

How did the Storm handle this poorly?

Turner didn't sign anything. He approached the Storm asking to stay and they were happy to comply.

The Storm knew Turner had an agreement with The Titans and chose to try and sign him anyway. Even though they told him initially that they could not afford him under the salary cap. These are the facts. I'd say that is pretty unprofessional and unethical practise. Bad form, Storm.

The Storm left the gate open, waited for the horse to bolt to another farm. Then they tried to drag the horse back again.

 

[Iafeta]

This plus the fact that no contract was signed. What if Steve agreed to go to the Titans but then when the contract was put in front of him to sign he did not agree to the terms in the contract and therefore refused to sign the contract?

As I've said before, the word signed is not important.

As I've said elsewhere, if you purchase a Big Mac from McDonalds you enter into a legally binding contract. But you don't sign anything, do you?

This is no different. A signature is only symbolic of further substantiating evidence. The quotes from Steve Turner himself and the emailed confirmation and acceptance from David Riolo constitute agreeing to a contract.

The signature is only symbolic back up.

 

[Willow]

This is my ruling:

The contract between the Titans and Turner is an unenforceable contract. Although the verbal contract was valid, failure by the Titans to register the contract within 10 days in accordance with NRL conditions means the contract can not be enforced by the courts.

According to the Titans, they sent the contract by courier the next day after the agreement was made on June 19. They have indicated that they are ready to show proof of this. The Storm are saying otherwise but have no proof that the contract was never sent. I think you'll find that the 10 day claim is one of those things that was 'worth a go'.

I know you're a seeking a loophole within the NRL rules, but the bottom line is that the NRL themselves have already indicated that they will be backing the Titans' version of events.

It is enforceable if a verbal contract is proven to have taken place.

We also need a common sense approach to this. Both parties are now no longer in agreement and it is in their best interest to go seperate ways.

One party is in agreement, the Titans are still keen to adhere to the deal. They are holding up their end of the bargain.
If both parties agreed to end the agreement, then that's fine. But as we can see, only one side wants to to terminate, so therefore your approach in this case is incorrect.

Since when in todays business environment has a verbal agreement sufficed? Who still works on a handshake anymore?

Every day someone makes a verbal agreement. You'd be surprised how much money changes hands over a handshake... and its all perfectly legal as long as you tell the tax office.

If it's not on paper, it's not legally binding.

You couldn't be more wrong.

If it goes to court the NRL and Gold Coast clubs could be made to look very silly. As the rules state, the Titans had 10 days to draw up a contract after a verbal. Not 8 weeks.

Courts only look at the legal evidence relating to the case.

See my reply above re the 10 day thing. And if its an NRL rule, then why are the NRL backing the Titans?

I could agree in principle to go to another workplace but then change my mind at the 11th hour to stay or go elsewhere if I haven't signed anything and there is nothing that the original prospective employer can do. That is common business practice and unfortunately as an employer it is something I have faced on more than one occasion.

Well I don't know about that. It depends on your relationship with your employer and the type agreement you have in place. Strictly speaking, by law, if you agreed to work for an employer for 12 months, and that agreement could be proven, then penalties could apply should you break that agreement.

Everyone agrees that football is a business now. What gives it the right to change the law to suit itself?

The Titans are adhering to the law.

 

[Cloud9]

One party is in agreement, the Titans are still keen to adhere to the deal. They are holding up their end of the bargain.
If both parties agreed to end the agreement, then that's fine. But as we can see, only one side wants to to terminate, so therefore your approach in this case is incorrect.

Not sure what your on about. Turner now doesn't want to join the Titans. There is an obvious disagreement.

According to the Titans, they sent the contract by courier the next day after the agreement was made on June 19. They have indicated that they are ready to show proof of this. The Storm are saying otherwise but have no proof that the contract was never sent. I think you'll find that the 10 day claim is one of those things that was 'worth a go'.

I know you're a seeking a loophole within the NRL rules, but the bottom line is that the NRL themselves have already indicated that they will be backing the Titans' version of events.

It is enforceable if a verbal contract is proven to have taken place.

Not necessarily. For example, a building contract where a building permit has not been issued. Such contracts will not be enforced by the courts unless the defect is rectified. Did the Titans send the contract to Turner for signing or to the NRL for registration? Please clarify.

 

[Willow]

Not sure what your on about. Turner now doesn't want to join the Titans. There is an obvious disagreement.

Let me try again. You said: 'Both parties are now no longer in agreement.'
I took that as 'the agreement' as in the verbal contract.
The Titans are still sticking by the agreement, Turner is the one breaking that agreement.

Not necessarily. For example, a building contract where a building permit has not been issued. Such contracts will not be enforced by the courts unless the defect is rectified. Did the Titans send the contract to Turner for signing or to the NRL for registration? Please clarify.

The Titans say they sent a contract to Turner the day after the agreement was made. They say they will be presenting proof this of this, along with other relevant material, to the NRL.

The Titans view on the timeline of events is here: http://www.leagueunlimited.com//team/article.asp?team=Titans&sport=NRL&ID=11802

The 10 day rule is something the Storm are bringing up. Just like how they claimed the contract was never sent until 8 weeks later. Quite frankly, I doubt the validity of that claim.

We also know the NRL appear to be siding with the Titans (Gallop says he's received an email from Turner's manager David Riolo which fully supports the Titans' case), and a final decision is expected to be handed down by the NRL in the coming days.

Doesn't all this suggest the NRL are happy with the way the Titans have conducted themselves?
What do you think?
At very least, this negates the allegation that the Titans have broken some technicality in the NRL rules.

So in summary...
The Titans think an agreement took place.
The NRL think an agreement took place.
Turner's manager thinks an agreement took place.
The Storm have acknowledged that an agreement took place.
And even Turner, as recently as last Monday, made it clear that an agreement took place.

Its all there in the public domain.

 

[I hate AFL]

Well I don't know about that. It depends on your relationship with your employer and the type agreement you have in place. Strictly speaking, by law, if you agreed to work for an employer for 12 months, and that agreement could be proven, then penalties could apply should you break that agreement.

I've been a contractor for 10 years and I have verbally agreed to terms (dollars and duration) but have elected to renegotiate or walk away from the agreement before signing if I am not happy with the written contract that I am subsequently offered. I have always believed that you are not obliged to sign a contract if you are not happy with the terms. To me verbal agreement signifies a willingness to get down to the nuts and bolts of the formal agreement but a verbal agreement is not final and either party can elect to not proceed with the written contract.

A verbal agreement does not list all the terms and conditions that apply to the contract and never can. In fact I do not think that I have ever signed a contract that didn't say something along the lines of "all terms and conditions of this agreement are detailed here and verbal agreement that conflicts with these terms is not binding. Any variation must be in writting and signed by both parties."

I believe that after signing a contact you are bound by that agreement and to that end I always like to have a "get out" clause. Hopefully Steve Turner will learn from this (and the oher young players) but his manager is really culpible as he is the one with the experience in the field of contracts and negotiations.

A 16 year old or an 18 year old or a 21 year old does not have the experience to negotiate as an equal with corporate employers, that is one of the justifications for an agents fees.

 

[Cloud9]

It appears this debate is going around in repetitive circles. I don't dispute the validity of the verbal agreement, it qualifies as an agreement. But whether it is enforceable is another issue. So the contract was issued to Turner for signing the next day but he never signed it and the obligation to lodge it with th NRL was with the Titans which they failed to do. Depending on the NRL's 10 day rule to which i don't have extensive details, there may be grounds for a technical loop hole in Turners favour.

Ofcourse the NRL will want to side with the Titans because they are new and need to succeed, they don't want this to be another precedent, which brings bad publicity to the game. The NRL can express their position but the courts may have a different view.
On the question of morality, its subjective. The Storm will view this as a technical issue.

 

[I hate AFL]

nice summary Cloud 9

 

[Cloud9]

I've been a contractor for 10 years and I have verbally agreed to terms (dollars and duration) but have elected to renegotiate or walk away from the agreement before signing if I am not happy with the written contract that I am subsequently offered. I have always believed that you are not obliged to sign a contract if you are not happy with the terms. To me verbal agreement signifies a willingness to get down to the nuts and bolts of the formal agreement but a verbal agreement is not final and either party can elect to not proceed with the written contract.

A verbal agreement does not list all the terms and conditions that apply to the contract and never can. In fact I do not think that I have ever signed a contract that didn't say something along the lines of "all terms and conditions of this agreement are detailed here and verbal agreement that conflicts with these terms is not binding. Any variation must be in writting and signed by both parties."

I believe that after signing a contact you are bound by that agreement and to that end I always like to have a "get out" clause. Hopefully Steve Turner will learn from this (and the oher young players) but his manager is really culpible as he is the one with the experience in the field of contracts and negotiations.

A 16 year old or an 18 year old or a 21 year old does not have the experience to negotiate as an equal with corporate employers, that is one of the justifications for an agents fees.

Agree. I too work for a large building contractor. In turner's case, a letter of intent was never issued after their verbal. Letters of intent can be disputed in courts and they are judged on the terms and conditions they expressly contain. It appears the verbal agreement with Titans is extremely vague.

 

[Willow]

Well according to what's out there in the public domain, its not that vague. He made an agreement and a contract was sent. It only became complicated when the Storm gazumped the deal.

Re your work contracts, as I said, it depends on the relationship you have with your employer. Its sometimes difficult to compare individual cases as the circumstances vary.

It appears this debate is going around in repetitive circles. I don't dispute the validity of the verbal agreement, it qualifies as an agreement. But whether it is enforceable is another issue. So the contract was issued to Turner for signing the next day but he never signed it and the obligation to lodge it with th NRL was with the Titans which they failed to do. Depending on the NRL's 10 day rule to which i don't have extensive details, there may be grounds for a technical loop hole in Turners favour.

I agree to an extent but we still don't know the detail of this supposed 10 day rule and how important it is. We are told it is an NRL rule - however, the NRL are siding with the Gold Coast.

Ofcourse the NRL will want to side with the Titans because they are new and need to succeed, they don't want this to be another precedent, which brings bad publicity to the game.

How do you know that's the NRL's view?

The NRL can express their position but the courts may have a different view.

Assuming you know what their position is. So far, we only have press releases. The clincher appears to be: Gallop says he's received an email from Turner's manager David Riolo which fully supports the Titans' case.

On the question of morality, its subjective. The Storm will view this as a technical issue.

Might be an idea to check out some of the news on the Storm's official website then. Its getting very tabloid. ;-)

Totally agree that morality shouldn't come into it. Its a business.

Nevertheless, if we are to get strictly technical, then we will be looking at who had the first legally binding agreement. That being the case, I think you'll find than Storm simply don't have enough runs on the board.

 

[Iafeta]

Not sure what your on about. Turner now doesn't want to join the Titans. There is an obvious disagreement.


Not necessarily. For example, a building contract where a building permit has not been issued. Such contracts will not be enforced by the courts unless the defect is rectified. Did the Titans send the contract to Turner for signing or to the NRL for registration? Please clarify.

What he's on about is BOTH parties have to wish to terminate the agreement for it to be ruled null and void.

Only Steve Turner does. The other party, the Gold Coast Titans, do not wish to end the agreement.

Therefore the agreement stands.

That's law class 101. Honestly, that's as simple as it comes.

 

[Iafeta]

I've been a contractor for 10 years and I have verbally agreed to terms (dollars and duration) but have elected to renegotiate or walk away from the agreement before signing if I am not happy with the written contract that I am subsequently offered. I have always believed that you are not obliged to sign a contract if you are not happy with the terms. To me verbal agreement signifies a willingness to get down to the nuts and bolts of the formal agreement but a verbal agreement is not final and either party can elect to not proceed with the written contract.

A verbal agreement does not list all the terms and conditions that apply to the contract and never can. In fact I do not think that I have ever signed a contract that didn't say something along the lines of "all terms and conditions of this agreement are detailed here and verbal agreement that conflicts with these terms is not binding. Any variation must be in writting and signed by both parties."

I believe that after signing a contact you are bound by that agreement and to that end I always like to have a "get out" clause. Hopefully Steve Turner will learn from this (and the oher young players) but his manager is really culpible as he is the one with the experience in the field of contracts and negotiations.

A 16 year old or an 18 year old or a 21 year old does not have the experience to negotiate as an equal with corporate employers, that is one of the justifications for an agents fees.

Technically then you are breaking a legally binding agreement.

It is caveat emptor. Let the buyer be aware. The buyer of your services was not made aware of your disagreement with the terms. It is your obligation to show reasonable cause that you have sought to understand the terms to which you are verbally agreeing to.

 

[Cloud9]

How do you know that's the NRL's view?

I'm giving possible reasons the NRL might want to side with the Titans. Looking for a motive, like detectives do.

What he's on about is BOTH parties have to wish to terminate the agreement for it to be ruled null and void.

Only Steve Turner does. The other party, the Gold Coast Titans, do not wish to end the agreement.

Therefore the agreement stands.

That's law class 101. Honestly, that's as simple as it comes.

What i'm on about is that Turner is no longer interested. Why would you want a player who clearly doesn't want to be with your team?

 

[I hate AFL]

Technically then you are breaking a legally binding agreement.

It is caveat emptor. Let the buyer be aware. The buyer of your services was not made aware of your disagreement with the terms. It is your obligation to show reasonable cause that you have sought to understand the terms to which you are verbally agreeing to.

I have always seen it differently; as what has been agreed to is the broad terms of the agreement and a willingness to enter into the formal agreement if the specific terms are acceptable to both parties. I am not obliged to proceed if I find that specific contract clauses are unacceptable. I tell the buyer that specific clauses are unacceptable and offer an alternative or I ask for a new clause to be inserted. If we can not reach an agreement on these items then we have failed to negotiate an agreement acceptable to both of us and I am free to reject their offer of employment or they are free to reject my offer of services for hire. Neither of us has any claim on the other if we fail to come to terms.

I'm saying in my experience that a verbal agreement that dollars and duration are acceptable is not a substitute for a formal contract but only one of the required steps in the process of negotiating that final contract and that until a contract is signed by both parties that nothing is binding.