- Aug 5, 2013
- 4,112
- 2,738
Didn't you guys sack Fergo? = terminate contract, therefore no pay.
[OFFICIAL] Anthony Milford to Broncos
- Thread starter Big Pete
- Start date
- Status
after a few weeks of not paying him for not showing up to work
- Mar 4, 2008
- 34,778
- 41,477
How do you know he wasn't paid. At that point he may have already been paid his entire years contract
They stood him down without pay when he stopped showing up.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
just sent an email to Rachel so if she answers I'll post her response.
Last edited:
- Mar 4, 2008
- 34,778
- 41,477
One thing that seems obvious to me, is that the get out clause is ambiguous at best and not clear for either party. Which makes it poorly written IMO. If it was clearly favoring one party the exact wording would have been leaked by now.
For example:
If the clause said something like: "If Anthony wishes to relocate to Brisbane to be with his sick father he is able to terminate the contract " then Ayoub would have revealed the clause either directly or indirectly
But if the clause said something like "If Anthony wishes to relocate to Brisbane due to his father's deteriorating health, the he is able to terminate the contract upon providing medical documentation showing that his health has deteriorated since [date]" the the Raiders have leaked the clause either directly or indirectly.
But one thing is certain, neither BHQ nor the greenhouse nor the courier mail nor the Canberra times has any idea what the exact wording of the clause is.
For example:
If the clause said something like: "If Anthony wishes to relocate to Brisbane to be with his sick father he is able to terminate the contract " then Ayoub would have revealed the clause either directly or indirectly
But if the clause said something like "If Anthony wishes to relocate to Brisbane due to his father's deteriorating health, the he is able to terminate the contract upon providing medical documentation showing that his health has deteriorated since [date]" the the Raiders have leaked the clause either directly or indirectly.
But one thing is certain, neither BHQ nor the greenhouse nor the courier mail nor the Canberra times has any idea what the exact wording of the clause is.
- Aug 5, 2013
- 4,112
- 2,738
She must love you.
Financeguy
NRL Player
- Apr 24, 2013
- 2,093
- 3,322
No matter how much a player wants out of a club no way will they deliberately let their team mates down on the field. Sitting out a season is one thing but sabotage of an nrl game should not be tolerated under any circumstance.
In 99.9999% of cases you're correct, you didn't watch Dugan round 1 this year though. He even joked about it when Furner confronted him at his place when he didn't show up to training and was drinking on the roof.
- Aug 5, 2013
- 4,112
- 2,738
You wouldn't want a guy you is capable of that behaviour at your club. can you imagine Locky or Webke entertaining such an idea? regardless of how bad it was off field.
- Jul 28, 2008
- 6,588
- 8,811
Actually, thinking it through, Bushy is probably right about this. Assuming that Milford stays in Brisbane and refuses to attend training, that would be an act repudiating the contract. The raiders could accept that repudiation and terminate the contract, hence no obligation to pay him. This would not stop them from enforcing any restraint clauses in the contract to stop him playing for another club.
Alternatively, if he refused to come to training, they could just refuse to pay him until he did. Think about a normal work situation, if you do not show up to work and do not have any sick or recreation leave to claim, your boss does not pay you, you either get terminated or go on leave without pay. Milf could hardly try to enforce the terms of a contract to get paid, when he had walked away from the contract.
- Jul 28, 2008
- 6,588
- 8,811
Port, you are wrong about this, if you have a certificate, youn get paid sick leave. If you have annual or long service leave accrued you can use that. But otherwise, you go on leave without pay and the employer does not have to pay you.
Very quick reply form Brett this time and not very helpful, replied and asked for more clarification.
Hi Brad,
Thanks for your enquiry.
This is an issue between the individual player and the club.
I hope this assists with your query, and we thank you for your support of the game.
Kind regards
Brett
Supporter liaison
Edit: his reply was depends on the contract between player and club
Hi Brad,
Thanks for your enquiry.
This is an issue between the individual player and the club.
I hope this assists with your query, and we thank you for your support of the game.
Kind regards
Brett
Supporter liaison
Edit: his reply was depends on the contract between player and club
Last edited:
Unless this whole this is as disingenuous as the Raiders say, in which case French or Japanese Rugby pay day beckons!
Yes and no. It'll come down to the proper construction of the Halo clause (and Foordy seems on the money below)
If Milford is really serious about getting out of Canberra, he could return from the World Cup, give notice (if he hasn't already) under the Halo clause and basically invite the Raiders to take action.
It would then be on Canberra to dispute the validity of the Halo clause.
But it's a lose/lose situation for them. They know that they can't push the "you must play for us" envelope too far, because even if they win on the interpretation issue, Milford will be pissed and I can't see him having a good 2014 with the Raiders.
Milford's management isn't beholden to the Raiders. They are trying to massage an amicable result so that the Raiders don't waste everyone's time with a Court action.
Xavier
NYC Player
- Mar 24, 2013
- 176
- 58
If Ayoub calls Dave Smith (who has made it clear that he wants to keep players in the game) and says look, we had a clause added in Anthony's contract for his protection, the Raiders agreed to the clause. We've exhausted all avenues, trying to work with Canberra, but they refuse to show any compassion towards Anthony's situation (Who has well documented Homesickness/family health issues, stemming from before any talk of the broncos).
The Broncos have expressed that they are interested in contracting Anthony. But if he is not granted a release for 2014, he will be lost to the NRL for good.
That's the angle that will be played.
He just doesn't turn up in Canberra and says he has activated his clause and signed with Broncos.
Then the Raiders can deal with fighting or disputing the release. But the bottom line is, he has a clause.
It doesn't sound like it's worded well. Sounds like it doesn't mention if it is mutual or not.
Raiders interpretation is that it is mutual, Ayoub's/Milfords interpretation is that it's not.
The Broncos have expressed that they are interested in contracting Anthony. But if he is not granted a release for 2014, he will be lost to the NRL for good.
That's the angle that will be played.
He just doesn't turn up in Canberra and says he has activated his clause and signed with Broncos.
Then the Raiders can deal with fighting or disputing the release. But the bottom line is, he has a clause.
It doesn't sound like it's worded well. Sounds like it doesn't mention if it is mutual or not.
Raiders interpretation is that it is mutual, Ayoub's/Milfords interpretation is that it's not.
Xavier
NYC Player
- Mar 24, 2013
- 176
- 58
Ayoub isn't dumb. He is very crafty. He manages some of the games biggest earners.
There is no way he would have a clause put in Anthony's contract that says, "if Anthony's dads health deteriorates, he may be released from his contract. But only if the Raiders say it's ok."
If that was the case, the clause voids itself.
There is no way he would have a clause put in Anthony's contract that says, "if Anthony's dads health deteriorates, he may be released from his contract. But only if the Raiders say it's ok."
If that was the case, the clause voids itself.
- Feb 27, 2010
- 29,632
- 12,007
I had not thought about unpaid leave tbh. Not sure about the legal ramifications of such a thing in a contract dispute like the one in question, where both parties feel justified about their grievance.
We're trying to discuss something without the important information, which is the contract details. Without those, I can only talk about what is normally the case in a fair work environment, and the thing is that withholding of pay is illegal in Australia, no matter the circumstances.
Unpaid leave is indeed a possibility if both parties agree, but not unilaterally. As soon as Canberra does that, Milford can immediately apply do dissolve the contract.
Should this case go to court, the clause (and its spirit) will undoubtedly be a matter of scrutiny, but even then, I doubt the court wouldn't dissolve the contract (with or without prejudice to Milford), under the reasoning that the relationship between parties has suffered irreparable damage.
The next question is whether restraint of trade would be applicable in this case, as the professional field in question is very narrow, and would essentially equal forcing Milford out of income for a year.
Given the circumstances of the contract breach (broad range of possibilities there, up to psychological distress on Anthony's part, for being away from his sick father) I very much doubt the courts would enforce a non compete clause, and the NRL would have no choice but to follow suit.
Once again, all of the above is based on the assumption that the contract was drawn in a manner that legally protects both parties under Australian Fair Work regulations. I obviously don't know much about particulars of high performance sports contracts, and there are probably many things I am not thinking about, but overal I cannot imagine they trump Australian law...
- Feb 27, 2010
- 29,632
- 12,007
Indeed, that is another one that really bothers me.
A clause is per definition, something that excludes mutual agreement. Either conditions are met, or they are not!
Like anything else, it may be subject to interpretation and if no agreement is reached, disputed in court, but there is no such thing as a mutual agreement clause.
EVERY contract can be dissolved under mutual agreement, there is no need for clauses!
- Status
