Tyrone starlet signs Swans deal / Coney staying in Ireland

[Tyrone man]

There is no doubt about it that, most young lads love it out here, you only have to look at the amount of young Irish people who come out here to work, which brings me to my next point, you have to ask yourself the question are these players out here for the life style or the love of the game?? However that is not questioning their commitment.

By the way, i'd love to see Murphy doing well, the more Irish people playing the more interesting i find it.

[robamiee]

i think that most people are forgetting, and whilst i don thibnk sueing him is the option, i think he has a responsability like we all do when contracts are signed. ?lbeit i agree some aren't worth the paper they are written however, as i stated before it could set a precident.
He even states that he doesn't turn on his word, yet he has done that to the swans.
Also it has left another potential yngster who wants to be a professional footballer a missed opportunity.

just because you watch a DVD of winning a premiership, how many of us have done that relieving 05 wishing the same thing again, you cant just walk out of a club that invested their money, time and above all commitment to the yng fella to just turn around and say thanks, but i want to be an amateur as the way he has acted is amateurish, and maybe the GAA is where he belongs.

[connolly]

Cant believe the foolish chat coming out of people regarding this!!! How could the swans sue a young lad just finished school who hasn't got a penny to his name??? As for suggesting that Tyrone be sued is stupid as no financial link exists between Tyrone & Kyle!! Also i'm sure most of you have a contract with your job......what would happen if you quit?? Not alot i would suspect.

I am from Tyrone & living in Australia, personally i think Kyle was very foolish to do what he has done as he had the potential to follow in the footsteps of Marty Clarke & he also wont get a look in with Tyrone for atleast another year but at the same time i understand where he is coming from, I dont think Aussies fully understand the passion for Gaelic football in Ireland & especially Tyrone, for me it was heart breaking to have missed the All Ireland final in Sept so i can imagine what it would be like to watch it on the other side of the world thinking you should be playing there. As you all know alot of young Irish are currently on these shores, a few of my best mates at home are currently out of work but won't come out here just because they want to play football for our local village!!

Also i dont think Australian teams should stop recruiting from Ireland because the talent is certainly there but i think they should possibly wait until players are over 20 & make sure they are committed about going, Kyle has obviously had doubts from day 1 & i think the taste of playing in Croker was probably what made his mind up!!!

There are also rumours in the papers back home that Kennelly is coming back as well so watch this space!!!

If Tyrone or the GAA or any otheir agents had any role in encouraging him to walk out on his contract they have a liability in tort and they can be severally or jointly sued and should be. Contracts are enforacble agreements even in the old country. And those who encourage young lads to break them (Cavanaugh perhaps???) should pay. And heavily.

[connolly]

There is no doubt about it that, most young lads love it out here, you only have to look at the amount of young Irish people who come out here to work, which brings me to my next point, you have to ask yourself the question are these players out here for the life style or the love of the game?? However that is not questioning their commitment.

By the way, i'd love to see Murphy doing well, the more Irish people playing the more interesting i find it.

There is a simple solution to all this. Come out by all means and have a look, take in the sights etc, etc. But don't sign a contract FFS. Its stopped another kid getting a chance, stuffed everyone around and put unnecessary costs on a club that has to make money to survive. In other words be a man. If Tyrone had any principle they would counsel him to honour his word. But sorry i forgot this is Tyrone we are talking about not Cork.

[connolly]

If you read between the lines it's pretty clear that he only came to the Swans for a chance to play with Davo.

As suggested earlier the little champ should be playing over there. As an amateur which is about his current market value. Thommo phone!

[goswannie14]

He wouldn't have to give up citizenship as i believe he would be entitled to dual citizenship. I know he has this moan every year but i think this time he is actually serious about it, he will most likely play out his contract & try win an All Ireland, but not if we can help it

Not according to all of the reports today.Kennelly quit claims just blarney to Swans

And this posted in another Irish paper (and on here earlier today)Kennelly rules out immediate return

[Bear]

Cant believe the foolish chat coming out of people regarding this!!! How could the swans sue a young lad just finished school who hasn't got a penny to his name??? As for suggesting that Tyrone be sued is stupid as no financial link exists between Tyrone & Kyle!! Also i'm sure most of you have a contract with your job......what would happen if you quit?? Not alot i would suspect.

I am from Tyrone & living in Australia, personally i think Kyle was very foolish to do what he has done as he had the potential to follow in the footsteps of Marty Clarke & he also wont get a look in with Tyrone for atleast another year but at the same time i understand where he is coming from, I dont think Aussies fully understand the passion for Gaelic football in Ireland & especially Tyrone, for me it was heart breaking to have missed the All Ireland final in Sept so i can imagine what it would be like to watch it on the other side of the world thinking you should be playing there. As you all know alot of young Irish are currently on these shores, a few of my best mates at home are currently out of work but won't come out here just because they want to play football for our local village!!

Don't take too much notice of the imbeciles posting opinions on something they know nothing about.

Good luck to the kid. He's made a good decision and will have time for a re-think over the next 1-2 years.

The SSFC will handle this correctly, and he'll don the red & white if and when he's ready to give the AFL his full commitment.

[BSA5]

Tyrone Man, Connolly hit the nail on the head (for a change! ). I'd have no problem if he came over to Sydney, tried out, but decided he preferred Gaelic and went home. But he didn't do that. He signed a contract, and allowed the Swans to commit one of their rookie draft picks to him, before he changed his mind, and that is quite simply not on.

[stephenite]

and that is quite simply not on.

Apparently it is, as for the lads quoting tort etc. and inducements, it's ludicrous to suggest that this is something that's remotely realistic.

[stephenite]

There is a simple solution to all this. Come out by all means and have a look, take in the sights etc, etc. But don't sign a contract FFS. Its stopped another kid getting a chance, stuffed everyone around and put unnecessary costs on a club that has to make money to survive. In other words be a man. If Tyrone had any principle they would counsel him to honour his word. But sorry i forgot this is Tyrone we are talking about not Cork.

Lol - Cork the amateurs that go on strike from a hobby

[SimonH]

If Tyrone or the GAA or any otheir agents had any role in encouraging him to walk out on his contract they have a liability in tort and they can be severally or jointly sued and should be. Contracts are enforacble agreements even in the old country. And those who encourage young lads to break them (Cavanaugh perhaps???) should pay. And heavily.

You sue in court to recover financial losses, not for hurt feelings or out of a sense of moral outrage. His 'cost' under the contract was to come out here and give Sydney his labour as a footballer. The cost to the Swans under the contract was his salary (and on-costs associated with providing him facilities to live here and play football). I would pretty safely bet that we're not paying him his salary if he doesn't come out (nor providing accommodation, coaching, medical services etc). Financial loss: zero.

The notional 'loss' of 'he mighta been a star and won us our next flag', or 'if only he'd told us earlier we coulda picked up another rookie who mighta turned into a star and won us our next flag' is pure conjecture; if you asked a Judge to put a dollar value on it, it wouldn't even cover the court filing fees.

As stephenite noted, talk of Coney (or any one of the several AFL players to walk out on their clubs over recent years) actually being sued is pure fantasy.

[connolly]

You sue in court to recover financial losses, not for hurt feelings or out of a sense of moral outrage. His 'cost' under the contract was to come out here and give Sydney his labour as a footballer. The cost to the Swans under the contract was his salary (and on-costs associated with providing him facilities to live here and play football). I would pretty safely bet that we're not paying him his salary if he doesn't come out (nor providing accommodation, coaching, medical services etc). Financial loss: zero.

The notional 'loss' of 'he mighta been a star and won us our next flag', or 'if only he'd told us earlier we coulda picked up another rookie who mighta turned into a star and won us our next flag' is pure conjecture; if you asked a Judge to put a dollar value on it, it wouldn't even cover the court filing fees.

As stephenite noted, talk of Coney (or any one of the several AFL players to walk out on their clubs over recent years) actually being sued is pure fantasy.

We are talking about exemplary damages for a tort not hurt feelings. And judges in equity courts assess damages for potential losses and loss of opportunity every day. You confuse a notional loss with an assessment of potential loss. The assessment would be based on evidence from expert witnesses and quantified as liquidated damages. Otherwise why bother with legally enforcable contracts? And how can a contract be enforcable if not by action on the breach or by injunction? Or do we run these things on a whim and a prayer?

[connolly]

Lol - Cork the amateurs that go on strike from a hobby

Hurling is no hobby. For those who dont know the mighty Cork hurling squad went on strike and the football team joined in as well. The players stuck together in 2002 for better conditions including doctors at all games, travel costs and gyms. The Cork players won and sport in Ireland has been greatly improved as a consequence of their principled action. Last season the Cork hurlers and footballers took on the GAA, went on strike for 100 days and again won the issue over selection of the selectors. Strong men play for Cork. But in the north its a different story and the unweened whimp Coney fits in well with the shafters. Tyrone had urged the GAA not to recognise the Gaelic Players Association during the Cork strike last season. Not only do they break contracts but they try to break strikes.

[SimonH]

We are talking about exemplary damages for a tort not hurt feelings.

Name a single case in Australia-- ever-- where a judge has awarded exemplary damages in a simple case of an employee signing a fixed term contract, and then just failing to turn up one day. Not because they'd run off to sell an invaluable trade secret to a competitor; but just because they didn't feel like doing that work any more.

And judges in equity courts assess damages for potential losses and loss of opportunity every day. You confuse a notional loss with an assessment of potential loss. The assessment would be based on evidence from expert witnesses and quantified as liquidated damages.

In the context of both the footballing business that the Swans run, and Coney's contracted role within it, I'd love to hear any argument that could be run seriously in a court, that the loss suffered (and yes, of course that includes a failure to realise an expected gain) was other than: a) trivial; and/or b) based on wild speculation about an objectively highly unlikely event. In the unlikely event that it covered the filing fee, it certainly wouldn't cover the cost of the expert witnesses. There would be potential real loss if BBBH walked out on his contract, like there was an arguable case with Sonny Bill Williams, where a substantial proportion of a club's marketing is based around the individual and he is for many the public face of the club. For an untested 18yo that no-one but football tragics have even heard of? Forget it.

Otherwise why bother with legally enforcable contracts? And how can a contract be enforcable if not by action on the breach or by injunction? Or do we run these things on a whim and a prayer?

You appear to be confusing enforceability of contracts generally, with particular principles developed by the law about ordering specific performance of employment contracts. The law set its face against indentured service a long time ago. If I walk out on my employer, then in the unlikely event that my employer suffers specific financial loss from my absence, they can sue me for that loss. And they may get it. What they won't get is an injunction ordering me to go back to work. Only in the most extreme and rare case would the court consider ordering me, on threat of contempt of court and being thrown into gaol, to walk through a specific office door on 9am Monday if I didn't want to.

Why do you think that the Bulldogs/NRL quickly settled their case against SBW for a financial pay-out and leaving him free as a bird to play RU in France? Not because they decided he was a really nice guy after all and they should treat him with kid gloves. Because they'd received advice that their chances of getting a permanent injunction for specific performance by SBW were minimal at best. And that case was about 1000 times stronger than any Coney case would be.

[connolly]

Name a single case in Australia-- ever-- where a judge has awarded exemplary damages in a simple case of an employee signing a fixed term contract, and then just failing to turn up one day. Not because they'd run off to sell an invaluable trade secret to a competitor; but just because they didn't feel like doing that work any more.In the context of both the footballing business that the Swans run, and Coney's contracted role within it, I'd love to hear any argument that could be run seriously in a court, that the loss suffered (and yes, of course that includes a failure to realise an expected gain) was other than: a) trivial; and/or b) based on wild speculation about an objectively highly unlikely event. In the unlikely event that it covered the filing fee, it certainly wouldn't cover the cost of the expert witnesses. There would be potential real loss if BBBH walked out on his contract, like there was an arguable case with Sonny Bill Williams, where a substantial proportion of a club's marketing is based around the individual and he is for many the public face of the club. For an untested 18yo that no-one but football tragics have even heard of? Forget it. You appear to be confusing enforceability of contracts generally, with particular principles developed by the law about ordering specific performance of employment contracts. The law set its face against indentured service a long time ago. If I walk out on my employer, then in the unlikely event that my employer suffers specific financial loss from my absence, they can sue me for that loss. And they may get it. What they won't get is an injunction ordering me to go back to work. Only in the most extreme and rare case would the court consider ordering me, on threat of contempt of court and being thrown into gaol, to walk through a specific office door on 9am Monday if I didn't want to.

Why do you think that the Bulldogs/NRL quickly settled their case against SBW for a financial pay-out and leaving him free as a bird to play RU in France? Not because they decided he was a really nice guy after all and they should treat him with kid gloves. Because they'd received advice that their chances of getting a permanent injunction for specific performance by SBW were minimal at best. And that case was about 1000 times stronger than any Coney case would be.

I won't answer the straw man arguments. If you read my first posts i actually said specific performance will not be ordered for employment contracts. Injucntions can and have been ordered against employees that have broken contracts, either restricting or preventing them working against the interests of their former employer. Look them up at austlii. The issue of whether the contract is fixed term or not is irrelevant to the issue of exemplary damages.
Exemplary contracts are ordered as punitive damages on public policy or interest grounds.
If you had read my argument i was proposing that damages be sought against those who induced the breaking of the contract. That of course would depend on the evidence of the role of Tyone, the GAA or Cavanaugh (who is on the public record as encouraging Coney not to play for us). Again if you had read my argument i had said there is a point in suing on the tort of infucing breach of contract. Your consciousness stream doesn't even discuss this. So are you saying that there is no precendent for exemplaray damages for the tort of inducing breach of contract? Try Woolley v Dunford (1972) 3 SASR 243 at 290-1; Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Australian Federation of Air Pilots (1991) 1 VR 637 at 659. Both the contract breaker and the tortfeasor can be sued to judgment, although there can not be double recovery, Jones Bros (Hunstanton) Limited v Stevens [1955] 1 QB 275 at 283. Exemplary damages could be sought on the basis that all contracts are jeopardised by offering inducements to break contracts. With respect you have completely missed the point. Exemplary damagaes are not available for contract breach. There are for damages in tort. The principles are set below. Whether the actions of Tyrone, Cavanugh or the GAA meet the standard is a matter of evidence not precedent.

X L Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 12; (1985) 155 CLR 448 at 471; Lamb v Cotogno [1987] HCA 47; (1987) 164 CLR 1 at 8-9. But as was explained by Windeyer J in Uren v John Fairfax and Sons Pty Ltd [1966] HCA 40; (1966) 117 CLR 118, at 153, "[E]xemplary damages must always be based upon something more substantial than a jury's mere disapproval of the conduct of a defendant." Accordingly, an award of this type will be "unusual and rare": Coloca v BP Australia Ltd [1992] 2 VR 441 at 448.To be damnified by punitive damages, the defendant's conduct must be "outrageous" (Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] UKHL 3; [1972] AC 1027, at 1089 per Lord Reid) or must be conduct "which shocks the tribunal of fact, representing the community" (Gray v Motor Accident Commission [1998] HCA 70; (1998) 196 CLR 1 at 35, per Kirby J) or his behaviour must be "in a humiliating manner and in wanton or reckless disregard" of the plaintiff's welfare (Backwell v AAA [1997] 1 VR 182 at 203). In this connection, reference should also be made to the description of exemplary damages in McGregor on Damages (16th ed, 1997) at para 430:

"The primary object of an award of damages is to compensate the plaintiff for the harm done to him; a possible second object is to punish the defendant for his conduct in inflicting that harm. Such a secondary object can be achieved by awarding, in addition to the normal compensatory damages, damages which are variously called exemplary damages, punitive damages, vindictive damagesor even retributory damages, and comes into play whenever the defendant's conduct is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment, as where it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence or the like."
See also Prosser & Keeton on Torts (5th ed) 1984 at pp 9-10:

"Something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages. There must be circumstances of aggravation or outrage, such as spite or `malice', or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that the conduct may be called wilful or wanton."