Tyrone starlet signs Swans deal / Coney staying in Ireland

[BSA5]

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

I'll just jump in here and say the value of his contract. By definition, his services are worth what he is willing to accept for them, and the Swans are willing to pay. Therefore, his services are worth $30000. He has robbed the Swans of his services, so he should pay that amount in compensation.

[connolly]

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

Would depend on his potential. How good was he? Bit like marrying a virgin. No form on the track. Might be better to go after Cavanaugh and the club behind him. More spuds in the sack and there is the possibility of exemplary damages for the inducement of breach of contract. Of course this is all on the assumption there was a repudiation of the contract by the kid. There may be a mutual agreement with the kid and the buddhists in regard to all this.

[Mr Magoo]

I guess I framed my question to induce some debate.

I agree that damages are a difficult measure in this case and more than likely exemplary damages are the only likely payable damage as the club has otherwise really sufferred little or no loss as a result of the breach (maybe they could claim the expenses of bringing him out here etc) . In regards the inducement by the irish club , i doubt that watching their videos over Xmas would be considered inducement unless their were much more detailed discussions and you would have to show that they occurred before Coney made the decision himself.

At the end of the day the legal costs in fighting in all this could be higher than the damages received and as there would be no right of indemnity against the third party it is unlikely they would receive all of their legal costs even if they won the action.

Better to move on and count it as a rookie who didnt work out and get a deed of release on the contract that includes a clause preventing him from playing with any other AFL club for the term of the original contract that has been released.

[BSA5]

I guess I framed my question to induce some debate.

I agree that damages are a difficult measure in this case and more than likely exemplary damages are the only likely payable damage as the club has otherwise really sufferred little or no loss as a result of the breach (maybe they could claim the expenses of bringing him out here etc) . In regards the inducement by the irish club , i doubt that watching their videos over Xmas would be considered inducement unless their were much more detailed discussions and you would have to show that they occurred before Coney made the decision himself.

At the end of the day the legal costs in fighting in all this could be higher than the damages received and as there would be no right of indemnity against the third party it is unlikely they would receive all of their legal costs even if they won the action.

Better to move on and count it as a rookie who didnt work out and get a deed of release on the contract that includes a clause preventing him from playing with any other AFL club for the term of the original contract that has been released.

The Swans suffered the loss of his or some other potential rookie's services to the club as well.

[ROK Lobster]

The Swans suffered the loss of his or some other potential rookie's services to the club as well.

(This reaspinds to all, not just BSA5)

Yes, but how would/could those be quantified. We can't claim that he owes us the value of the contract, because we never paid him (I expect). If we said his services were worth $30K we have not suffered loss because we did not pay him anything. To claim we have lost $30K we would have to argue that he was worth $60K (ie was being short-changed).

Suing for a lost opportunity with another rookie would be dicey.

[connolly]

(This reaspinds to all, not just BSA5)

Yes, but how would/could those be quantified. We can't claim that he owes us the value of the contract, because we never paid him (I expect). If we said his services were worth $30K we have not suffered loss because we did not pay him anything. To claim we have lost $30K we would have to argue that he was worth $60K (ie was being short-changed).

Suing for a lost opportunity with another rookie would be dicey.

Costs incurred (putting him up in the backpackers hostel at Coogee, expenses at the Kerry pub for the scouts etc, etc.) and the loss of opportunity (potential to bring us a premiership and therefore more revenue) are possible. But how good is he? Now if he was a young ...

[royboy42]

[
Better to move on and count it as a rookie who didnt work out and get a deed of release on the contract that includes a clause preventing him from playing with any other AFL club for the term of the original contract that has been released.[/QUOTE]

And that's about the best, and only, possible result..unless he decides to stay with the swans.

[ShockOfHair]

Interesting legal situation. It's not as if the Swans can claim a share of the future earnings of an amateur footballer.

But I'm not convinced this is settled. Coney hasn't quit. He's told journalists in Ireland that he's decided to quit. But he didn't tell the Swans or have any discussions with them whatsoever. The Swans club has made no announcement.

I would expect Coney has been reminded quite forcefully of his legal obligations. The question is not the enforceability of the contract but whether it's enough to persuade him to meet his commitments. It's not as if he's going to hire a QC.

I'm amazed the story hasn't broken in the footy press. Just shows you how slack and Melbourne-focused they are.

There'll be a bit of rethinking about Irish recruitment after this.

[connolly]

Interesting legal situation. It's not as if the Swans can claim a share of the future earnings of an amateur footballer.

But I'm not convinced this is settled. Coney hasn't quit. He's told journalists in Ireland that he's decided to quit. But he didn't tell the Swans or have any discussions with them whatsoever. The Swans club has made no announcement.

I would expect Coney has been reminded quite forcefully of his legal obligations. The question is not the enforceability of the contract but whether it's enough to persuade him to meet his commitments. It's not as if he's going to hire a QC.

I'm amazed the story hasn't broken in the footy press. Just shows you how slack and Melbourne-focused they are.

There'll be a bit of rethinking about Irish recruitment after this.

But a club spokesperson admitted that the door remained open to the 18-year-old should he change his mind. The spokesperson said: ?We?re a bit disappointed that he?s not back in Australia already but we?re fully supportive of Kyle and his family because we understand that it?s a difficult decision to make for an 18-year-old. We are fully supportive and happy for him to take a bit of extra time to make up his mind and hopefully he ends up coming back to Australia to play for the Sydney Swans.?

No matter how strong the contract footy teams made up of contract conscripts don't do very well. Whatever the breach by the kid there's not much point in forcing him back. As for Tyrone well thats a different kettle of cod entirely. Sue them.

[stephenite]

Why would you sue Tyrone? They're an amatuer team who are part of an amatuer organisation who have had no contract with Coney, and never will. If he is living and working within their county borders (and he's from there so you imagine he will be) then he is entitled to play for them, for free.

So how can you sue Tyrone or the GAA?

[ROK Lobster]

Why would you sue Tyrone? They're an amatuer team who are part of an amatuer organisation who have had no contract with Coney, and never will. If he is living and working within their county borders (and he's from there so you imagine he will be) then he is entitled to play for them, for free.

So how can you sue Tyrone or the GAA?

Don't ask sensible questions.

[connolly]

Why would you sue Tyrone? They're an amatuer team who are part of an amatuer organisation who have had no contract with Coney, and never will. If he is living and working within their county borders (and he's from there so you imagine he will be) then he is entitled to play for them, for free.

So how can you sue Tyrone or the GAA?

The basis of the action is the tort of inducing breach by the kid of his contract. It would be incumbent on the Bloods to prove on the civil standard that Tyrone or its agents had the:
(a) intention to procure a breach of contract;
(b) they did in fact induce it; and
(c) that the Bloods suffered damage as a consequence.

If you are really interested cast your critical eye over Tzu v Fightvision Pty Ltd at [url="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/1999/323"].
The courts will award exemplary damages, ie. damages in punishment against third parties that induce breach of contracts. Whether Tyrone is an "amateur" organization (whatever that is FFS) is completely irrelevant to the issue of the tort. They won the championship last year so they must have something in potato sack. If the tort occured in Ireland it wouldn't matter much as Irish common law has similar basis in tort and remedies. In addition the Bloods could seek and would probably get an injunction against Coney, Tyrone and/or the GAA to prevent the kid from playing gaelic for the duration of his contract with the Bloods.

[connolly]

Don't ask sensible questions.

Its a reasonable point. By the way maybe we can do a deal with last season's runners up in the All Ireland final - Kerry (Tadgh's mob). Their kicking for goal was abysmal, particularly their place kicker. Do we know of any ex-AFL player who could fit the bill. Doesn't have to tackle, run or chase. Just take a place kick from about 45 metres. Maybe we could export some faded champ over to the old country? Any suggestions?

[Bas]

If you are really interested cast your critical eye over Tzu v Fightvision Pty Ltd In addition the Bloods could seek and would probably get an injunction against Coney, Tyrone and/or the GAA to prevent the kid from playing gaelic for the duration of his contract with the Bloods.

Now that would Kostya heaps!

[BSA5]

(This reaspinds to all, not just BSA5)

Yes, but how would/could those be quantified. We can't claim that he owes us the value of the contract, because we never paid him (I expect). If we said his services were worth $30K we have not suffered loss because we did not pay him anything. To claim we have lost $30K we would have to argue that he was worth $60K (ie was being short-changed).

Suing for a lost opportunity with another rookie would be dicey.

Why would it be dicey? The only "diceyness" would be the fact that we still have the $30,000. But if we have nothing to spend it on, that sort of becomes useless. The Swans struck a balance between budget and playing list. That balance has now been altered from what is ideal. The Swans should be compensated. If they come out with $30,000 more than they started off with, then that goes some way to compensating for the way in which their budgetary plans were messed with.

Think of it this way: there are two houses you are interested in, A and B. You decide on B, and place a deposit on it. A is then sold to another buyer. You try to finish the deal on B, but find that the owner of B has decided to sell it to his cousin, and returns your deposit. You've been screwed over illegally, and now have no house.

Perhaps in this context, deciding the money the Swans should get shouldn't be equal to the value of the contract. You're probably right on that. After all, it isn't actually the services, or the equivalent monetary value, that we've lost; it is actually the disruption it causes to the running of the club. Perhaps it would be fair to call it 50% of the contract value, or something along those lines.

Tricky to adjudicate, but if the Swans actually went ahead with it, and were successful, it would probably be a big step towards removing the uncertainty associated with sporting contract law.