That makes no sense, if he can do the job anyway while you're fighting over his start date. That defeats the whole purpose.
THE BOSS Dave Donaghy - Broncos CEO
- Thread starter McHunt
- Start date
That makes no sense, if he can do the job anyway while you're fighting over his start date. That defeats the whole purpose.
broncos4life
International Captain
- Oct 5, 2011
- 26,663
- 27,317
Well the other guy on the board that works for New Ltd. has completely fucked our once great club in tandem with the exiting CEO so you will forgive me if I don't see "works for News Ltd." as some kind of reassurance or suitability for the role.
Honestly I don't care too much about boards or tickets and take overs- It's reeks of Parramatta. But I find this whole legal thing odd- even if you win I can't see what you're actually winning.
Kooly87
NRL Captain
- Jun 2, 2017
- 4,197
- 7,275
As I've said, CEO's and Senior Leaders do this literally ALL the time. NRL CEO's move between NRL clubs and other sporting clubs, Bank CEO's move between other Banks, Tech CEO's move to other tech companies etc. I'd wager just about every single one of these guys would have the same clause in their agreements.
If every Executive who had a clause like this abided by them then there would literally be carnage right across just about every company currently listed on the ASX as they scrambled to cover leadership gaps. The reality of Corporate Australia is that once you've become a CEO that's essentially all you do from that point onwards, so if every company only has one CEO typically speaking, then it doesn't exactly leave you with a huge amount of options other than to move around the business landscape, almost like how NRL players move from club to club to club because there isn't any other job they can really move into.
Kooly87
NRL Captain
- Jun 2, 2017
- 4,197
- 7,275
It isn't his choice remember, he's entitled to go and seek employment wherever he likes. If Melbourne feel that breaches his agreement with them (again, the Broncos are not relevant in any of this, the agreement is between Donaghy and Melbourne only) then it's entirely contingent on them to bring a case against Donaghy to enforce their agreement, and as the Plaintiff that means the entire burden of proof is on them, not Donaghy.
If they lose, there would also be a very strong chance that they are ordered to pay costs given that they are a private company and they brought the actions on an individual. Very highly unlikely that the reverse would be true if Donaghy were to lose though.
I think potentially you're trying to look for logic here and frankly there isn't any. This is pretty clearly about spite and in this instance the offended party has very deep pockets to try and make their point. I'd suggest even if they lose they might simply be satisfied in knowing they fought the point anyway and maybe in their minds this makes life tough for the Broncos.
As for Donaghy and doing what's right by him and the Broncos, well I think again you're giving this too much thought. He doesn't really need to do anything at all, he simply goes about doing his job at the Broncos and leaves what is no doubt a very competent Solicitor with a copy of his employment agreement and a retainer and lets them go about doing their job as well.
Kooly87
NRL Captain
- Jun 2, 2017
- 4,197
- 7,275
Why would Lawyers be any less likely to support the Broncos than any other profession?
Kooly87
NRL Captain
- Jun 2, 2017
- 4,197
- 7,275
This is where it gets tricky. Your obligations to your employer don't necessarily stop once you've ceased your employment.
Stopping him from working might be next to impossible, but if he were in fact caught somehow using Melbourne's intellectual property or knowledge for commercial gain with his new employer, it's a very different scenario and then he could very likely have an injunction put in place to stop him working and be personally sued by the Storm.
Again, this would likely have no impact on the Broncos as the agreement is between Donaghy and Melbourne, so he may be personally sued but it would be much harder for Melbourne to bring any sort of action against Brisbane even if they were able to successfully sue Donaghy, and again, they could only sue Donaghy if they could actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had used their intellectual property after agreeing not to, which Donaghy would have to be incredibly stupid to get busted for in the first place.
Last edited:
- Oct 28, 2013
- 12,489
- 13,204
Because the majority of them would be private school rugby wankers?
theshed
Just a Game
- Aug 28, 2010
- 15,605
- 36,353
They arent, I just must not have realised how common they were in the general pop.
lynx000
State of Origin Rep
- Jul 28, 2008
- 6,592
- 8,816
You pretty much have it right. As is always the case with this thing, it is hard to say anything when you do not have a copy of the contract to read all of the clauses in context.
As I have said previously, the only possible cause of action that the Storm could have against Brisbane would be a tort of inducing a breach of contract. It is not something that is run very often these days.
So the action would be between Storm and Donaghy. As I understand it, his contract had in fact come to an end, so it would be one more clauses that continue to operate post employment, and a non-compete clause is one of these.
They would not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Donaghy was in breach of a clause, beyond reasonable doubt is the criminal standard of proof. They would have to establish on the balance of probabilities that he was in breach of the contract (that is, more likely than not) and therefore should be restrained.
As I have indicated before, the way this would usually play out is that the Storm would seek an interim injunction to restrain Donaghy from acting in breach of the contract. That is where Donaghy woud get to argue that the clause is unlawful and therefore inoperative. If he wins at that stage and there is no injunction, he is right to start.
lynx000
State of Origin Rep
- Jul 28, 2008
- 6,592
- 8,816
Breed like rabbits in Dubbo.
- Aug 27, 2008
- 2,834
- 4,033
They really can't stop him working for the Broncos.
The non-compete stuff would be around stealing sponsors, raiding the staff/player ranks, etc.
If he did those things he could be in all sorts of trouble, but just taking the job and performing the task ethically? Can't be stopped as far as I know.
Although perhaps the real issue is the likelihood of anyone from the Storm acting ethically LOL
The non-compete stuff would be around stealing sponsors, raiding the staff/player ranks, etc.
If he did those things he could be in all sorts of trouble, but just taking the job and performing the task ethically? Can't be stopped as far as I know.
Although perhaps the real issue is the likelihood of anyone from the Storm acting ethically LOL
- Jul 28, 2016
- 24,429
- 35,831
Can the reverse happen where Donaghy takes the storm to court to remove the clause (i.e. basically pre-empt the injunction and argue it in court)?
And if so how long would that process typically take??
It's potentially restricting him from employment so I'd imagine Donaghy could request an expedited hearing.
If he loses then he just sits out till August, but if he wins then he can start straight away and storm lose all power (assuming he could keep working regardless of appeals, etc. being put forward by the storm).
Last edited:
Kooly87
NRL Captain
- Jun 2, 2017
- 4,197
- 7,275
Donaghy has no incentive to take this to Court of his own accord. He only needs to respond if an action is bought against him, which is still not something that’s actually taken place yet as far as we know. Melbourne are making all the right sounds but actually going through with this isn’t cheap and they have no good reason to actually throw money at it save for spite.
I get that the owners have deep pockets but they may well change their tune once the bills start rolling in and they realise they’re only doing this to hold up a start date by less than six months.
Ahh see, that’s where you’re mistaken.
In a case like this, no one wins, except of course the legal teams bank accounts.
- Sep 22, 2016
- 3,462
- 6,200
That would be interesting how urgent they view the injunction or restraint in this situation! Would require impact and such evidence.
Filing with the court registrant urgently and hope Fed Judge picks it up immediately, otherwise up to a month i guess? Can imagine now if were the Broncs HQ was filing it, would be missing the right documents, no affadivtis or copies of contracts etc
Last edited:
- Jul 28, 2016
- 24,429
- 35,831
Except it is currently stopping him from taking up his position with the Broncos.
It's also believed that the Broncos are negotiating with the storm so they forego the clause and allow him to start early... I'm assuming those negotiations are centred around a settlement.
So it's going to cost the Broncos money anyway.
If they can fast track a legal case to allow Donaghy to take up his post it could be cheaper or comparable to a settlement... with the added bonus that storm get **** all for their pissing and moaning
Last edited:
Unread
-
The one thing Michael Maguire won’t do after dominant Broncos win- Latest: Mick_Hancock
-
-
-
-
