OFFICIAL Dave Donaghy Named New Broncos CEO

kooly87

NRL Player
2,970
5,134
Surely at CEO level and having worked for the club before you're not sitting there all timid and shy and not wanting to upset anyone?

Wouldn't your solicitor read it as well and say that's crap get them to take it out?

Seems to me if its useless why is it there and if it's illegal why is it there. If someone had said something at the start what could now be a whole mess could have been avoided.
It's not that it's 'illegal' it's just that it's not enforceable in practicality.

People put unenforceable or unreasonable terms into contracts all the time that later get contested because sometimes they do get away with it. It's basically the main reason why one whole half of the entire legal profession exists, to argue these finer points in courts and through mediation to get a result one way or the other on a point of contention.

Dave Donaghy has been a Sports Administrator for decades and with recent experience in the NRL as his main and most recent skillset and experience. If you insert a clause in his contract requiring that he not be a Sports Administrator in the NRL for a period of time after leaving your employment that is almost certainly going to be viewed as a restraint of trade and therefor not enforceable.

Melbourne would essentially have to prove that it is a reasonably necessary clause needed to protect the legitimate interests of their business. The fact that a CEO's role is largely commercial in nature and that these clubs operate in two totally different cities only exacerbates how hard it is to reinforce that point and makes it even more exceedingly unlikely that they'd have much to work with. As I said above, if this was a club answerable to shareholders it would be viewed as a very poor use of resources. When you have a small group of private owners with very deep pockets, you can afford to take it personally, even if a good result is fairly unlikely.

This happens all the time in a huge range of industries and it's particularly prevalent amongst senior leaders and executives especially so this is certainly not unusual in terms of these sort of matters.
 
Last edited:

JAHHW

NRL Player
2,176
4,727
Surely at CEO level and having worked for the club before you're not sitting there all timid and shy and not wanting to upset anyone?

Wouldn't your solicitor read it as well and say that's crap get them to take it out?

Seems to me if its useless why is it there and if it's illegal why is it there. If someone had said something at the start what could now be a whole mess could have been avoided.
He was unproven as a CEO when he signed the CEO contract though.

So the party with all the contractual (and indeed financial) negotiating power at such time would have been the Storm, almost in a ‘take it or leave it’ approach.

So far as I understand, contracts in Australia have to be bilateral, insofar as they cannot be heavily weighted in favour of one party over the other. But non-compete clauses are just like sunset clauses in real estate contracts. Often there are so many buyers wanting a property, they have no choice but to accept the sunset clause, which only benefits the seller (and of course, the real estate agent).
 
Last edited:

kooly87

NRL Player
2,970
5,134
He was unproven as a CEO when he signed the CEO contract though.

So the party with all the contractual (and indeed financial) negotiating power at such time would have been the Storm, almost in a ‘take it or leave it’ approach.

So far as I understand, contracts in Australia have to be bilateral, insofar as they cannot be heavily weighted in favour of one party over the other. But non-compete clauses are just like sunset clauses in real estate contracts. Often there are so many buyers wanting a property, they have no choice but to accept the sunset clause, which only benefits the seller (and of course, the real estate agent).
Correct, it's about what's fair and reasonable for both parties. In this instance, the burden of proof would be on Melbourne to prove that it is not fair and reasonable that Donaghy seeks employment in the industry he's just spent several years employed in. He's a Sports Administrator with recent experience as an NRL CEO and just about any judge would agree that it's reasonable that he seeks employment in the industry that his skillset best applies to, which in this instance is the NRL.

It's frivolous at best, and unless you have pretty deep pockets and a willingness to act in spite, your legal counsel would be strongly discouraging you from pursuing this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 007

BroncsFan

State of Origin Rep
5,023
6,041
In saying that, it does smell of complete inept from the board. You dont go announcing a CEO starting when the legal ground hasnt been completely cleared. If you do, you must be sure 100000% theres no fallout and have the guns to shut it down immediately - for the sake of PR and reputation.
I believe the board have indicated Donaghy has signed a letter of intent or something similar, indicating that he has formally accepted the position.

The board have not yet flagged a starting date because of the storm's shenanigans.

I don't really see what the issue is with what they have done.
 

kooly87

NRL Player
2,970
5,134
I believe the board have indicated Donaghy has signed a letter of intent or something similar, indicating that he has formally accepted the position.

The board have not yet flagged a starting date because of the storm's shenanigans.

I don't really see what the issue is with what they have done.
Even if we had to operate for six months with literally no CEO, it's simply not possible for even the empty chair to do a better job of utterly torching the place than Paul White managed in his previous stint.
 

BroncsFan

State of Origin Rep
5,023
6,041
If Melbourne think that he will get amnesia and forget the clubs secrets and inner workings completely in a 6 month period, they are off their rockers.
I believe the IP, company secrets, etc. are covered by the NDA and would effectively be permanent.

Whereas the non-compete clause should essentially be related to actions that lead to commercial harm... hence why there is a time period.

To me that is basically if Donaghy "poaches" a sponsorship deal or something that storm have in the works and is something that Donaghy has intimate knowledge of.

What I'm not really understanding is why a non-compete clause could even allow someone to not take up employment elsewhere.

It shouldn't stop him from taking up the Broncos post... and should be more along the lines of if Donaghy breaches a conflict of interest within the 6 month period then the storm could say he breached the non-compete clause and seek damages
 
Last edited:

kooly87

NRL Player
2,970
5,134
I believe the IP, company secrets, etc. are covered by the NDA and would effectively be permanent.

Whereas the non-compete clause should essentially be related to actions that lead to commercial harm... hence why there is a time period.

To me that is basically if Donaghy "poaches" a sponsorship deal or something that storm have in the works and is something that Donaghy has intimate knowledge of.

What I'm not really understanding is why a non-compete clause could even allow someone to not take up employment elsewhere.

It shouldn't stop him from taking up the Broncos post... and should be more along the lines of if Donaghy breaches a conflict of interest within the 6 month period then the storm could say he breached the non-compete clause and seek damages
Theoretically, he's more likely to be able to do commercial harm to Melbourne by joining an AFL club or someone like the Melbourne Victory given they operate in the same metropolitan market and are competing for the same corporate and membership dollars.
 

broncos4life

International Rep
19,851
16,195
Brisbane
Even if we had to operate for six months with literally no CEO, it's simply not possible for even the empty chair to do a better job of utterly torching the place than Paul White managed in his previous stint.
The empty chair would do a far better job.

Broncos Staff Member: "Darius Boyd has come to us with a huge offer from a rival club, so to keep him should we offer him 800k for 4 years?"
Empty Chair: "......."
Broncos Staff Member: "You're right, that is a ridiculous amount considering his current level and age, we'll offer him 500k for two years take it or leave it, thanks Empty".

Broncos Staff Member: "Just been talking to Isaac Moses about a heap of our players and he wants to have player options put into their contracts for multiple years, can't see any harm in that and it obviously means they love it here and want the option to stay"
Empty Chair: "......."
Broncos Staff Member: "Of course why didn't I think of that, PO's only benefit the player and lead to complacency or will have them go to the higher bidder if they play well giving absolutely no benefit to the club, thanks Empty Chair you always know what to say."


Broncos Staff Member: "I think we should give Anthony Seibold a 5 year contract with no performance clauses, I mean he is the freaking Dally M coach of the year!"
Empty Chair: "......."
Broncos Staff Member: "When you put it that way he has only been a head coach for 2 years of a roster that was already high performing, let's make it 2 years with the option to extend if he goes well".
Empty Chair: "......."
Broncos Staff Member: "You think we should have some performance clauses in there too? You got it!"


Broncos Staff Member: "As you know Kayla and Darius are pregnant so we thought we would have an exciting gender reveal after the game to celebrate tonight"
Empty Chair: "......."
Broncos Staff Member: "You have a point, if we lose tonight we win the first wooden spoon in our club's history and celebrating on the field no matter the occasion would be a terrible look and would be a massive insult to all our fans. I'll tell the guys to have it queued up but if we lose then it is called off and they need to at least pretend to be disappointed in the result".
Empty Chair: "........"
Broncos Staff Member: "Actually now that I think about it more, even if we do win and avoid the wooden spoon this has still been a terrible season filled with disappointment, poor attitudes and an overall disconnect from the fans and the legacy of this club; I'll tell them that we won't do it on the field but will arrange a really nice private celebration to honor Darius and their upcoming family addition. Thanks EC"
 
Last edited:

BroncsFan

State of Origin Rep
5,023
6,041
I'm unsure how non-compete clauses are typically worded or the intent of the clause (legal minded members may be able to advise)... however they may be one of the following.

Non-compete in regards to storm's commercial interest... if this is the intent then Donaghy hasn't breached anything and wouldnt breach anything by taking up a new post.

Non-compete in regards to taking up a similar role within 6 months... obvious restraint of trade and would be kicked out of court instantly

Non-compete in regards to poaching storm's staff. That would be a restraint of trade on the storm's staff and again would require Donaghy to be in the role and actively play a part in the head hunting.

Even if the commercial or poaching staff clauses are the intent, Donaghy can just excuse himself from the discussions citing a conflict of interest.


If I'm the Broncos I'm taking the storm to court to get it removed and allow him to start working
 
Last edited:

1910

State of Origin Captain
8,680
6,215
Even if we had to operate for six months with literally no CEO, it's simply not possible for even the empty chair to do a better job of utterly torching the place than Paul White manageDd in his previous stint.

That was going to be my next point, why fight it? If in six months or five now he can work freely why fight it for six months and cost money?

Put Monaghan in there until June, Donaghy can float around and learn the role and then take over, take the fight away from the Storm.

If all they're gunning for is annoyance and a fight- don't give it to them. Broncos have bigger things to fight and fix than this- I would be focusing on football and not taking on another fight; when in 6 months you can get what you want anyway with very little impact on the previous six months.
 
Last edited:

007

NRL Player
1,693
1,686
That was going to be my next point, why fight it? If in six months or five now he can work freely why fight it for six months and cost money?

Put Monaghan in there until June, Donaghy can float around and learn the role and then take over, take the fight away from the Storm.

If all they're gunning for is annoyance and a fight- don't give it to them. Broncos have bigger things to fight and fix than this- I would be focusing on football and not taking on another fight; when in 6 months you can get what you want anyway with very little impact on the previous six months.
The issue is also he would not be allowed to float around at all, if their claim was to somehow have substance
 

kooly87

NRL Player
2,970
5,134
Is it maybe because Bellamy will follow and there was something about not poaching staff in the contract?
I did consider this to be honest, but given Bellamy's decision one way or the other is likely to be imminent any day now and any negotiations for that could easily be proven in Court to have been in progress and being worked on in the pipeline long before Dave Donaghy was ever employed by us, this is also likely to be absolutely useless to Melbourne in any future proceedings.
 

kooly87

NRL Player
2,970
5,134
That was going to be my next point, why fight it? If in six months or five now he can work freely why fight it for six months and cost money?

Put Monaghan in there until June, Donaghy can float around and learn the role and then take over, take the fight away from the Storm.

If all they're gunning for is annoyance and a fight- don't give it to them. Broncos have bigger things to fight and fix than this- I would be focusing on football and not taking on another fight; when in 6 months you can get what you want anyway with very little impact on the previous six months.
I think this might be a misunderstanding of the issue itself. To be clear, it's not the Broncos who would be instigating this fight. The proceedings would have to be brought on Donaghy, not the Broncos, by Melbourne. It would then be up to Donaghy to contest this personally as it's got absolutely nothing to do with the Broncos.

In practicality we may be prepared to fund this on his behalf, but we as a party have no actual legal status in this instance as the Broncos certainly don't have any agreement with Melbourne, Dave Donaghy has one personally and the Court can only deal with the parties involved in this specific contract between Donaghy and Melbourne.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register now

Forum statistics

Threads
17,870
Messages
1,054,997
Members
2,534
Latest member
Billd0856

Twitter

Top