Was Terry Wallace paid?

[satchmopugdog]

The club said today that the contact between Wallace and the club was instigated by Wallace's management and there were no payments or contracts. Wallace just assumed he was wanted in Sydney.

What really pees me off though is certain media types, Carro in particular, who run the line that Wallace was stiff because the swans appointed Roos and went on to win a flag and Wallace took Richmond over Hawthorn and the hawks went on to a premiership. Carro's implication was that Wallace was dudded out of a flag twice!

Neither team would ahve won a premiership with Wallace as he is too image conscious. He wouldnot have instituted therazor/ youth policy of Hawthorn and he would not have been able to get the mostout ofour Cortinas as hewould not like playing an unpopular game style. Too many short term negatives for him.

[Lohengrin]

More to the point Dick perhaps induced the Wallet to break his contract with the Doggies. As Terry Terrific actually did no work for us he wouldn't have been paid. (I presume it was an employment contract) Why was he paid? Hush money? Was there a signing on fee? Was there a probationary period to the contract? Did the contract have penalties against us if Dick failed to deliver for the Wallet and he didn't actually take the position? What sort of contract was it FFS?? Has any member of the club seen a copy of the "contract"? Any answers Dick? In terms of the Corporations Act why doesn't Dick comply with the fiduciary obligations of company directors and at least report on the "Contract"? Also in terms of equitable remedy neither Dick nor the Wallet had clean hands did they?

I think you just ate a small legal dictionary and vomited it onto the page without really understanding why.

[CureTheSane]

The club said today that the contact between Wallace and the club was instigated by Wallace's management and there were no payments or contracts. Wallace just assumed he was wanted in Sydney.

What really pees me off though is certain media types, Carro in particular, who run the line that Wallace was stiff because the swans appointed Roos and went on to win a flag and Wallace took Richmond over Hawthorn and the hawks went on to a premiership. Carro's implication was that Wallace was dudded out of a flag twice!

Yeah, one one hand she'll say that Wallace was cheated out of a flag.
This implies that the players would have won that flag regardless of who was coaching the,.
Then on the other hand she'll come out and say that Sydney were not a spectacular team and their style of play won them the flag.
Guess where the style of play comes from?

Can't have it both ways.....

[connolly]

I think you just ate a small legal dictionary and vomited it onto the page without really understanding why.

Really such a brilliant ripost. Tell us why??

[connolly]

Your lack of understading of the law is quite remarkable, as is your ability to simply dribble crap when trying to get out of a corner.

To continue the boxing analogy ( a sport i know a little about) its called counter punching. Now perhaps you can try to get off the ropes and explain how Wallace could have been paid under a "contract"that Dick says doesn't exist. And then you can explain what service Terry Terrific actually performed for the club to warrant any remuneration under an allegedly non-existent contract? If he was paid compensation under a "without prejudice"settlement perhaps you can explain how that wouldn't constitute a breach of directors duties to the corporation, given that apparently there was no contract or if there was, there is no documented decision to engage Terry? Or are we a club that not only supports players that breaks contracts but pays pretenders that don't have them??? Over to you Rumpole.

[connolly]

Can't have it both ways.....

She can you know. She calls the Wallett a failure (fair call) in her latest missile to the wallet of Terry Terrific.

Wallace's Tigers insipid - RFNews - realfooty.com.au

[ROK Lobster]

To continue the boxing analogy ( a sport i know a little about) its called counter punching. Now perhaps you can try to get off the ropes and explain how Wallace could have been paid under a "contract"that Dick says doesn't exist. And then you can explain what service Terry Terrific actually performed for the club to warrant any remuneration under an allegedly non-existent contract? If he was paid compensation under a "without prejudice"settlement perhaps you can explain how that wouldn't constitute a breach of directors duties to the corporation, given that apparently there was no contract or if there was, there is no documented decision to engage Terry? Or are we a club that not only supports players that breaks contracts but pays pretenders that don't have them??? Over to you Rumpole.

You suggested that you thought Terry was paid. Why don't you explain why? I'd also like to hear about the fiduciary duty under the Corporations Act - that really had me scratching my head. To whom is that duty owed? If my understanding is correct Sydney Swans Limited is a corporation limited by guarantee.

[ROK Lobster]

C'mon Connolly - it's been 20 minutes since you started your reply. Just cut and paste a big whack of text from Austlii and assume that I wont have the time or inclination to bother with it.

I would also advise against getting to close to suggesting that Colless has acted in a manner that may be contrary to the best financial interests of the club. Scott and Frog wont be thrilled if you get them sued. Given your previous comments about the Swans' not being strong enough to pursue legal remedies, when they actually have a cause of action on the basis of one of your comments, they just might have a go.

[connolly]

C'mon Connolly - it's been 20 minutes since you started your reply. Just cut and paste a big whack of text from Austlii and assume that I wont have the time or inclination to bother with it.

I would also advise against getting to close to suggesting that Colless has acted in a manner that may be contrary to the best financial interests of the club. Scott and Frog wont be thrilled if you get them sued. Given your previous comments about the Swans' not being strong enough to pursue legal remedies, when they actually have a cause of action on the basis of one of your comments, they just might have a go.

Fair go. i have breakfast responsibilities here. If a company officer did make a binding promise (not saying they did but theoretically if they did - no defemation here) they would possibly be in breach of s 180(1) breach of the standard of care and diligence. The standard is objective on the reasonable person test. Any payments to Wallace if they were made on the authorization of a company officer (including a chairman, director or company secretary) as a consequence of compensation for breach of binding obligations on the club which were (if they were) given to Wallace before the selection process for the coaching position was begun or completed would be held to be a breach of the reasonable test or reckless. There are defenses of good faith, reasonableness and belief in the best interests of the corporation. There is also a common law business judgement rule. I wish i could cut and paste this stuff. Try reading Fords Principles of Corporations Law pp. 337 - 441.

[ROK Lobster]

Fair go. i have breakfast responsibilities here. If a company officer did make a binding promise (not saying they did but theoretically if they did - no defemation here) they would possibly be in breach of s 180(1) breach of the standard of care and diligence. The standard is objective on the reasonable person test. Any payments to Wallace if they were made on the authorization of a company officer (including a chairman, director o0r company secretary) as a consequence of compensation for breach of binding obligations on the club which were 9if they were) given to Wallace before the selection process for the coaching position was bgun or completed would be held to be reckless. There are defenses of good faith, reasonalbleness and belief in the best interests of the corporation. There is also a common law business judgement rule. I wish i could cut and paste this stuff. Try reading Fords Principles of Corporations Law pp. 337 - 441. Back to brekkie

That makes no sense at all and does not answer any of the questions asked. You argue like Bevan plays footy. Tough and tenacious without any real skill, flair or awreness. Keep backing into those packs mate and enjoy your breakfast.

[Emerald Hill]

Don't really care if he was.
It's just business.
Who here would complain about any event which occurred which inevitably resulted in us winning the flag?

Spot on! Who cares? We pulled the right rein! 6 years in a row of finals including one magnificent premiership! Thanks Roosy!!!!!!!

[connolly]

That makes no sense at all and does not answer any of the questions asked. You argue like Bevan plays footy. Tough and tenacious without any real skill, flair or awreness. Keep backing into those packs mate and enjoy your breakfast.

Thanks for the complement. The fiduciary duty is statutory and is owed to shareholders. If the action of company officer(s), in offering a contract to a prospective employee, outside the authorized selection process, (if it was) has the consequence of significant financial loss to the corporation, such as payments to a person who doesnt perform any service to the club then issue of breach of duty surely arises. If there were any financial penalties or compensatory payments that arose with the selection of Roos over Wallace (if in fact that did happen) why wouldn't a responsible company officer declare that and proceed with the undertaking to Wallace (if that in fact did happen) in protection of the financial interests of the club?(if in fact that was the case). Too hard?

[royboy42]

Sometimes it seems that the legal thoughts presented here are more for 'see how smart I am' purposes, rather than to help the less eddificated amongst us to understand what the heck is going on!

[caj23]

I went to a breakfast last year where he spoke, he claimed a heads of agreement was signed, and he was paid a sum by the swans after roos was appointed

[Yakety_Yak]

Wallace said at press conference last week something like " there were confidentiality issues arising from legal matters that prevented explainatory comment" refering to his departure from Bulldogs.

Had to be either Dogs or Swans... confidentiality implies remuneration.

Why Dogs?

If either Colless (Chairman) Templeton (CEO) had encouraged his departure there would be good reason to shut Wallace up following the fans outcry R22 Kel& Dunks last game. It was well & truly leaked Wallace was likely given the nod. Paul Roos had commented he would be "very disappointed if agreement had been reached.

To keep face and preserve relationships with Swans fans, Paul Roos and especially for (possibly Dogs greatest ever player) K Templeton the relationship with his old club!


Sydney Swans FC can easily claim honestly ....NO PAYMENT made to Wallace!

Just pay his management company a fee "for coach recruitment search" to be passed on from their account...providing they hold such confidentiality agreement.


The BEST MONEY ever spent by Swans!!!!!!!!!!