Tyrone starlet signs Swans deal / Coney staying in Ireland

[stephenite]

When is Tadhg's bi-annual whinge about being homesick? Been a few months. Must be due.

I'd imagine it's more his pre-contract negotiations, if he was really homesick he'd have done what Coney has and stayed at home, a long time ago

[Cheer Squad mbr]

Sue him for the amount his contract was worth. His services were worth whatever the Swans were willing to pay for it, and whatever Coney was willing to accept. The Swans have been robbed of his services through breach of contract. They should be compensated with the monetary value of his services.

Not a lawyer, so I'm not sure if that's how it works. It would set a VERY interesting precedent though, if it were to happen.

Kinda reminds us of the saga between Sonny Bill Williams and the Canterbury Bulldogs.

[573v30]

If there's ever a bright side to anything, it's the fact that he wasn't a senior player but only a rookie.

[573v30]

Trained 5 weeks and found it too hard. Back to the potato farm for this one.

This thread officially DEAD!

Like the Cousins and Davis threads, this will live on (I hope).

[laughingnome]

Sue him? I'd like to see that. Considering that all football contracts in the country are against the Trade Practices Act and therefore unenforcable any court in the land would side with Coney. The system used by the AFL, NRL and ARU only exists because of a mutual agreement between the Football Clubs, the Administration and the players (and their unions). What keeps it out of court is the threat of not being able to play a game if you file suit against the code and the associated income loss.

Sue him? Not b----y likely.

[ShockOfHair]

http://www.herald.ie/sport/gaelic-fo...e-1593356.html

Thanks for the link Ugg.

That makes sense. In the other stories he didn't make any reference to having had any discussions with the club.

Now it's clear he hasn't! Cue the Irish jokes.

[Cardinal]

Cousins wouldn't have walked out !

[DST]

True enough. And the Swans have got what they deserve. If we are hit for injuries during 2009 (or simply hit by senior players who fail to come on as expected and are facing the end-of-year chop) but lack rookies to step into the breach, it's entirely of our own making.

Come on Simon, even if we didn't take the three extra NSW rookie spots we still have the largest rookie list (and NSW Scholarship list as well) of any of the other 15 clubs.

So you can't run that arguement at all.

DST

[BSA5]

Sue him? I'd like to see that. Considering that all football contracts in the country are against the Trade Practices Act and therefore unenforcable any court in the land would side with Coney. The system used by the AFL, NRL and ARU only exists because of a mutual agreement between the Football Clubs, the Administration and the players (and their unions). What keeps it out of court is the threat of not being able to play a game if you file suit against the code and the associated income loss.

Sue him? Not b----y likely.

Damn. Told you I wasn't a lawyer!

[connolly]

Sue him? I'd like to see that. Considering that all football contracts in the country are against the Trade Practices Act and therefore unenforcable any court in the land would side with Coney. The system used by the AFL, NRL and ARU only exists because of a mutual agreement between the Football Clubs, the Administration and the players (and their unions). What keeps it out of court is the threat of not being able to play a game if you file suit against the code and the associated income loss.

Sue him? Not b----y likely.

Dom't know about that. Sonny Bill and the frogs were certainly going to be sued before they settled out of court.

[laughingnome]

Dom't know about that. Sonny Bill and the frogs were certainly going to be sued before they settled out of court.

And the big three codes were all sweating on the outcome because it had the potential to ruin the system. You can't force a person to commit to a situation they don't want, which is what Sonny's case was and what the Trade Practices Act was set up for. Once the lawyers informed Canturbury of the legal standing they practically ran to the settlement table, because it meant they could save face after publicly stating they would make Sonny pay.

As an aside (and I know this isn't really on topic), if the law was on Canturbury's side, why on earth would they settle? If the contract was binding then they would have either got their player back or a huge payout, which was a win-win. No, it was lose-lose from the club's perspective and they knew it.

[Mr Magoo]

Does that mean you also cant force the club to pay for the player if they decide they dont want to play him any more?

[connolly]

Does that mean you also cant force the club to pay for the player if they decide they dont want to play him any more?

No the contracts are enforcable. In New South Wales, a restraint of trade is valid to the extent that it is not against public policy Restraints of Trade Act , 1976, s 4(1). A restraint of trade is not contrary to public policy if it is reasonable between the parties, and not unreasonable in the public interest. That is the contract gives adequate protection to the party in whose favour it is imposed (AFL) and doesn't injure the public (us mugs). AFL contracts would most probably meet the test in NSW. So pay up potato boyho. And that big mouth Cavanaugh and the club lurking that induced him to breach his contract have liability as well. Get the silks out and lets go.

[connolly]

And the big three codes were all sweating on the outcome because it had the potential to ruin the system. You can't force a person to commit to a situation they don't want, which is what Sonny's case was and what the Trade Practices Act was set up for. Once the lawyers informed Canturbury of the legal standing they practically ran to the settlement table, because it meant they could save face after publicly stating they would make Sonny pay.

As an aside (and I know this isn't really on topic), if the law was on Canturbury's side, why on earth would they settle? If the contract was binding then they would have either got their player back or a huge payout, which was a win-win. No, it was lose-lose from the club's perspective and they knew it.

In employment contracts the courts are very reluctant to order specific performance as a remedy. The best that the bullies could have hoped for was monetary compensation. The frog multi who fell for the Sonny scam agreed to pay up so the bullies accepted. Adeui Sonny Bill. The Supreme Court of New South Wales would hardly order an Irish kid to perform his contract as convict labour in this state was abolished some time ago.

[ROK Lobster]

No the contracts are enforcable. In New South Wales, a restraint of trade is valid to the extent that it is not against public policy Restraints of Trade Act , 1976, s 4(1). A restraint of trade is not contrary to public policy if it is reasonable between the parties, and not unreasonable in the public interest. That is the contract gives adequate protection to the party in whose favour it is imposed (AFL) and doesn't injure the public (us mugs). AFL contracts would most probably meet the test in NSW. So pay up potato boyho. And that big mouth Cavanaugh and the club lurking that induced him to breach his contract have liability as well. Get the silks out and lets go.

If you don't want specific performance, what sort of damages are we looking at you reckon?