OFFICIAL Dave Donaghy Named New Broncos CEO

[Sproj]

If Tripper is that worked up Dave must be very serious about the Broncos job.

Sign him for February second. Anyone can take up the interim CEO role in the mean time. It's very common to head hunt CEOs and place an interim CEO if necessary.

Interim CEO - Antoinette Seesbottles, it is happening and (s)he will insert a clause in h(is)er own contract saying they have a job for life.

 

[Cult]

why do we need to respond to his whinging

Because I’m sick of our club being everyone’s punching bag and not responding to anything. They’re quiet during post match interviews after we get bent over by shit decisions, they’re quiet when other clubs insult them, they’re quiet when the NRL changes rules to **** us over.

 

[lynx000]

Would a NC clause generally prohibit someone from signing elsewhere? Do you think there would be an issue with him signing for the day after the clause is up if it's a standard NC clause.

It depends on what the clause says. The usual scenario with a non-compete clause is that it operates after the employment relationship or contract ends. It is usually for a fixed (and mostly limited) period of time and to a particular geographic area or industry. If it is too long or too extensive in terms of its area of operation they usually get struck down.

That is why I said I would be surprised if it operated in the manner suggested by Tripps and why I was interested in seeing how the clause had been drafted. In any event, re his threat of suing us, the breach of contract would be by Donaghy and not us. So Storm's primary cause of action would be against him seeking damages and most likely an injunction (that would really aid relations with your CEO). At best against us, there is an old tort called inducing a breach of contract. But if Donaghy is able to negotiate and leave after 31 January, their cause of action is pretty much illusory in terms of what they could get from us in damages. Maybe they would seek an injunction to restrain us from talking to him.

In other words, I think he is pissing in the wind.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

 

[Foordy]

it's Dobbo, but still, Bend over Tripp

 

[Thelmus]

Maybe we should talk to a certain coach who has a good working relationship with him :p
If you think hed be upset with losing a CEO, imagine a CEO and coach. Heck, throw in an aging hooker while we are at it :)

 

[winslow_wong]

it's Dobbo, but still, Bend over Tripp [emoji14]

Wonder what his bhq username is

 

[Galah]

Wish it came from someone not named dobbo but still.

 

[mstreet]

Wish it came from someone not named dobbo but still.View attachment 10005

This meme makes me want to check on my kids

 

[Galah]

This meme makes me want to check on my kids

Sorryyyyy hahahaha.

 

[rnabokov]

It depends on what the clause says. The usual scenario with a non-compete clause is that it operates after the employment relationship or contract ends. It is usually for a fixed (and mostly limited) period of time and to a particular geographic area or industry. If it is too long or too extensive in terms of its area of operation they usually get struck down.

That is why I said I would be surprised if it operated in the manner suggested by Tripps and why I was interested in seeing how the clause had been drafted. In any event, re his threat of suing us, the breach of contract would be by Donaghy and not us. So Storm's primary cause of action would be against him seeking damages and most likely an injunction (that would really aid relations with your CEO). At best against us, there is an old tort called inducing a breach of contract. But if Donaghy is able to negotiate and leave after 31 January, their cause of action is pretty much illusory in terms of what they could get from us in damages. Maybe they would seek an injunction to restrain us from talking to him.

In other words, I think he is pissing in the wind.

Non Compete or Non Disclosure? I can't see how a Non Compete clause would operate in this situation. Isn't it a type of restraint of trade clause, restraint to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer? How is there commercial competition between 2 football clubs when it comes to the work of a CEO? Don't see it applying here. However, a Non Disclosure Agreement seems relevant, protecting any sensitive confidential financial or marketing matters although it wouldn't prevent him getting another job as CEO of a football club.. Equally, inducing breach seems to be an economic tort where there has to be manifest loss. This is a contract law matter. I can't see the relevance of inducing breach. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Marty Deutschmann]

But does he have a decent BBQ?

 

[lynx000]

Non Compete or Non Disclosure? I can't see how a Non Compete clause would operate in this situation. Isn't it a type of restraint of trade clause, restraint to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer? How is there commercial competition between 2 football clubs when it comes to the work of a CEO? Don't see it applying here. However, a Non Disclosure Agreement seems relevant, protecting any sensitive confidential financial or marketing matters although it wouldn't prevent him getting another job as CEO of a football club.. Equally, inducing breach seems to be an economic tort where there has to be manifest loss. This is a contract law matter. I can't see the relevance of inducing breach. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yep you are wrong, but that is okay. There is no contract in place between the Storm and Broncos, ergo, Melbourne could not pursue a cause of action for breach of contract against Brisbane. If there is a clause that prevents Donaghy speaking to potential suitors and he does so, they have a contractual cause of action against him in which as I noted they would probably seek injunctive relief.

Tripp however said the the Storm would take action against the Broncos. If they can't take action for breach of contract, their only other option is for a tort claim based on inducing a breach of contract.

Re the nature of the clause, as I said who knows, however, a non-disclosure/confidential information clause is a completely different beast to a clause that would prevent a CEO interviewing for a prospective position or talking to a prospective employer. That is more in the nature of a non-compete clause.

 

[rnabokov]

Yep you are wrong, but that is okay. There is no contract in place between the Storm and Broncos, ergo, Melbourne could not pursue a cause of action for breach of contract against Brisbane. If there is a clause that prevents Donaghy speaking to potential suitors and he does so, they have a contractual cause of action against him in which as I noted they would probably seek injunctive relief.

Tripp however said the the Storm would take action against the Broncos. If they can't take action for breach of contract, their only other option is for a tort claim based on inducing a breach of contract.

Re the nature of the clause, as I said who knows, however, a non-disclosure/confidential information clause is a completely different beast to a clause that would prevent a CEO interviewing for a prospective position or talking to a prospective employer. That is more in the nature of a non-compete clause.

I take your points, however I seem not to have been clear in my post. I was referring to whether or not Donaghy's contract could contain an enforceable non compete clause, relevant to him coming here, as the business of the Storm is not one where they are in commercial competition with the Broncos as opposed to the typical context of where non compete clauses operate.

Again, I can't see how inducing breach as an economic tort would apply here as this is a contract law matter, and not one involving sensitive commercial, or IP matters which would be covered in a non disclosure agreement, which I am sure applies to Donaghy's employment.

Of course you are right, the issues as above relate to Donaghy and his employer, not us, and indeed, they are pissing in the wind

 

[Kimlo]

Yep you are wrong, but that is okay. There is no contract in place between the Storm and Broncos, ergo, Melbourne could not pursue a cause of action for breach of contract against Brisbane. If there is a clause that prevents Donaghy speaking to potential suitors and he does so, they have a contractual cause of action against him in which as I noted they would probably seek injunctive relief.

Tripp however said the the Storm would take action against the Broncos. If they can't take action for breach of contract, their only other option is for a tort claim based on inducing a breach of contract.

Re the nature of the clause, as I said who knows, however, a non-disclosure/confidential information clause is a completely different beast to a clause that would prevent a CEO interviewing for a prospective position or talking to a prospective employer. That is more in the nature of a non-compete clause.

A long time ago I actually had a non-compete clause in an old work contract, of course I ignored it and went and started my own business. It was some BS clause about not being able to work within the industry within 10kms in the first 6 months, 20kms in the first year, scaling to 3 years. Good luck convincing a judge that's fair so I ignored it.

My understanding is a contract only has merit if it is reasonable, and I obviously took a risk that the my previous employer wouldn't be dumb enough to take me to court for it as it effectively made me unemployable for a year. It appears to me a lot of non compete clauses are just the employer going above and beyond what's reasonable and hoping they won't have to defend the clause in court.

 

[lynx000]

A long time ago I actually had a non-compete clause in an old work contract, of course I ignored it and went and started my own business. It was some BS clause about not being able to work within the industry within 10kms in the first 6 months, 20kms in the first year, scaling to 3 years. Good luck convincing a judge that's fair so I ignored it.

My understanding is a contract only has merit if it is reasonable, and I obviously took a risk that the my previous employer wouldn't be dumb enough to take me to court for it as it effectively made me unemployable for a year. It appears to me a lot of non compete clauses are just the employer going above and beyond what's reasonable and hoping they won't have to defend the clause in court.

Yes pretty much, unless you are suffering significant damage from the action of the former employee, usually it is not cost effective to pursue an action.

 

[Broncapz]

Tripp is a salty little ****.

 

[Foordy]

Tripp is a salty little ****.

with a bit of luck, he is salty for a good reason