- Sep 6, 2013
- 56,802
- 69,380
They certainly could...if Sticky wasn't the coUch.
[Official] - Milford signs with Broncos
- Thread starter ningnangnong
- Start date
They certainly could...if Sticky wasn't the coUch.
Thibaùlt
BRL Player
- Nov 27, 2013
- 57
- 10
Bit of cunning there by Ayoub.
Just because no one 'wants' a disruptive legal battle, doesn't mean there won't be one.
Chose his words carefully.
The clause must be 50/50.
It will be embarrassing if this goes to court and the Raiders end up losing.
Need to stop taking your Fergo/Dugan/Carney frustration out on Milford.
No one "wanted" not "wants"
Thibaùlt
BRL Player
- Nov 27, 2013
- 57
- 10
Dam I wish we could see the wording of the Halo termination clause.
It must be more like: "Milford may seek a termination of this contract, subject to agreement by the Raiders, if Halo is sick", as opposed to "Milford may terminate this agreement on notice if Halo is sick".
Even in the case of the former, you'd have to argue there is an implied term for the Raiders (and for that matter Milford) to act in good faith when giving or not giving consent to a release.
So if they don't consent, Milford really has only the option to allege they are acting in bad faith or unreasonably withholding their consent.
In the alternative, if he simply walks away and repudiates the contract, the Court would have to look at the restraint of trade clause that would prevent him from playing for another club during 2014.
All agreements in restraint of trade are prima facie void unless they are reasonable in the interest of the parties, the onus on the Raiders to prove it's reasonable.
You'd have to think, taken in light of the Raiders potentially acting in bad faith about the termination clause, proving the restraint of trade is reasonable to protect their legitimate interests would be a difficult hurdle for the Raiders to overcome.
I think before it goes to Court the NRL would step in to mediate... Who knows what happens then. No doubt they'd take the "what's best for the interests of all involved, which probably leans towards the clubs' rights of enforceability of contracts.
If they take Milford's side, you set a pretty heavy precedent.
It must be more like: "Milford may seek a termination of this contract, subject to agreement by the Raiders, if Halo is sick", as opposed to "Milford may terminate this agreement on notice if Halo is sick".
Even in the case of the former, you'd have to argue there is an implied term for the Raiders (and for that matter Milford) to act in good faith when giving or not giving consent to a release.
So if they don't consent, Milford really has only the option to allege they are acting in bad faith or unreasonably withholding their consent.
In the alternative, if he simply walks away and repudiates the contract, the Court would have to look at the restraint of trade clause that would prevent him from playing for another club during 2014.
All agreements in restraint of trade are prima facie void unless they are reasonable in the interest of the parties, the onus on the Raiders to prove it's reasonable.
You'd have to think, taken in light of the Raiders potentially acting in bad faith about the termination clause, proving the restraint of trade is reasonable to protect their legitimate interests would be a difficult hurdle for the Raiders to overcome.
I think before it goes to Court the NRL would step in to mediate... Who knows what happens then. No doubt they'd take the "what's best for the interests of all involved, which probably leans towards the clubs' rights of enforceability of contracts.
If they take Milford's side, you set a pretty heavy precedent.
Forgive short reply as running late for work.
Cant comment on Costigan as can't remember why he was sacked, any help?
Carney was a major repeat offender and the NRL agreed.
Dugan and Fergo forced the Raiders hand, apart from being repeat offenders they basically walked out on the club leaving them no choice but to sack them, the precedent that set is potentially nasty for every club in the NRL the Broncos included, they weren't simple sackings.
Will try better reply when have time.
Cant comment on Costigan as can't remember why he was sacked, any help?
Carney was a major repeat offender and the NRL agreed.
Dugan and Fergo forced the Raiders hand, apart from being repeat offenders they basically walked out on the club leaving them no choice but to sack them, the precedent that set is potentially nasty for every club in the NRL the Broncos included, they weren't simple sackings.
Will try better reply when have time.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 35,035
- 41,884
Costigan was sacked for drink driving, but from memory it wasn't the only offence he committed (most were no where near as serious though)
worm of the north
NYC Player
- Aug 5, 2013
- 111
- 64
Foordy,
They are all different situations and should all be seen in a different light.
I defititely see where you are coming from, but the same aplies for every club. Players come and go, but the situations you have described are unique. For example;
Neville Costigan - was sacked for discplinary reasons, however your club never disputed whether he play for another club and never forced nor asked the NRL to step in. We did pick him up, but had the Broncs not sacked him, we would never have made contact.
Blake Ferguson - Blake was our marquee player, and of course a very troubled individual. He lost Dugan through disciplinary reasons earlier in the year and was seeking a release to move back to Sydney. The Raiders just simply wanted to have him play out the season prior to executing his clause as stipulated. Of course the clubs came asking, and many were interested and secretly still are, but BLake made a fool of himself with his posts, his disappearing act and many other stupid behaviours and many disrespectful acts toward the our club. Management of course intervened and they want to make a statement with him as enough is enough.
The original move to get Blake Ferguson was also as the Milford saga is to a degree but varied somewhat. His clause was just get out. no other factors. Milfords was his fathers health which we know is fine. Blake finished hios season at the sharks and did not attempt to play games to leave. The Raiders never pursued him outside of getting his signature and waiting until the season ended.
Ricky Stuart - Well that one is exactly as it is. He wanted out and we needed a coach. Be it a good or bad move we are bound to find out. But as you say, it is exactly as you tell it.
Dugan and Todd Carney are both unrelated.
Dugan was contracted for another 2 seasons. He had massive personal issues with David Furner and authority in general. We wanted him and bet over backward for him and he decided to play a game against the club to try and work a sacking out in his favour as he had optins by other clubs. He wanted out of the Raiders system and set the wheels in motion to gain it through discplinary action. He was the first to do this (Fergo follwed) and we attempted to try and make an example of it. The NRL did not step in and they let him get away with it. Another club, more income and Origin awaited. Hence why we tried even harder with Fergo. But luvkily just the fact he is an idiot, he managed to do it all on his own. Similar to how Dugan blew his chance at the Broncos.
Todd Carney - This one saddens me. We wanted him, he wanted us, he just could not corect his alcohol issues and had a long line of indescretions that the club had covered up for many years. Eventuially they had enough and gave him an option. 5 point plan. He declined. The club had no choice. They were not winning any friends in the playing group by defending him and hiding is problems. In fact their behavious was only proving to him that he was bigger than the club. The NRL stepped in and banned him for a year. To fix himself. I love Toddd still to this day and would have him back tomorrow if you re-signed. There is no animosty there.
Milford. Well he is the only marquee player we have left after the above issues and Campo's injury. He and his manager have made this hard on our club, your club and themselves by their underhanded tactics and whether or not there were offers made or whether it was to lure him or outside of who approached who, the club has obviously had enough. To be honest though, and if you read my posts on the GH, I believe they are making their point on the wrong case. This will only blow up in our faces if they dig their heels in, but chances are they will and no one will win in 2014. In fact it will flow over a lot longer for Canberra if they make a aissue out of this. They have already made a false statement, lied to the media, who knows how this is gong to blow up in our face if this gets even uglier.
I want them to release him. hopefully come to an agreement with the Broncs for some kind of return and let him go. But I do see why the Raiders are wanting to dig their heels in, as enough is enough, but they are going about it all wrong.
Anyway.. Long post..
They are all different situations and should all be seen in a different light.
I defititely see where you are coming from, but the same aplies for every club. Players come and go, but the situations you have described are unique. For example;
Neville Costigan - was sacked for discplinary reasons, however your club never disputed whether he play for another club and never forced nor asked the NRL to step in. We did pick him up, but had the Broncs not sacked him, we would never have made contact.
Blake Ferguson - Blake was our marquee player, and of course a very troubled individual. He lost Dugan through disciplinary reasons earlier in the year and was seeking a release to move back to Sydney. The Raiders just simply wanted to have him play out the season prior to executing his clause as stipulated. Of course the clubs came asking, and many were interested and secretly still are, but BLake made a fool of himself with his posts, his disappearing act and many other stupid behaviours and many disrespectful acts toward the our club. Management of course intervened and they want to make a statement with him as enough is enough.
The original move to get Blake Ferguson was also as the Milford saga is to a degree but varied somewhat. His clause was just get out. no other factors. Milfords was his fathers health which we know is fine. Blake finished hios season at the sharks and did not attempt to play games to leave. The Raiders never pursued him outside of getting his signature and waiting until the season ended.
Ricky Stuart - Well that one is exactly as it is. He wanted out and we needed a coach. Be it a good or bad move we are bound to find out. But as you say, it is exactly as you tell it.
Dugan and Todd Carney are both unrelated.
Dugan was contracted for another 2 seasons. He had massive personal issues with David Furner and authority in general. We wanted him and bet over backward for him and he decided to play a game against the club to try and work a sacking out in his favour as he had optins by other clubs. He wanted out of the Raiders system and set the wheels in motion to gain it through discplinary action. He was the first to do this (Fergo follwed) and we attempted to try and make an example of it. The NRL did not step in and they let him get away with it. Another club, more income and Origin awaited. Hence why we tried even harder with Fergo. But luvkily just the fact he is an idiot, he managed to do it all on his own. Similar to how Dugan blew his chance at the Broncos.
Todd Carney - This one saddens me. We wanted him, he wanted us, he just could not corect his alcohol issues and had a long line of indescretions that the club had covered up for many years. Eventuially they had enough and gave him an option. 5 point plan. He declined. The club had no choice. They were not winning any friends in the playing group by defending him and hiding is problems. In fact their behavious was only proving to him that he was bigger than the club. The NRL stepped in and banned him for a year. To fix himself. I love Toddd still to this day and would have him back tomorrow if you re-signed. There is no animosty there.
Milford. Well he is the only marquee player we have left after the above issues and Campo's injury. He and his manager have made this hard on our club, your club and themselves by their underhanded tactics and whether or not there were offers made or whether it was to lure him or outside of who approached who, the club has obviously had enough. To be honest though, and if you read my posts on the GH, I believe they are making their point on the wrong case. This will only blow up in our faces if they dig their heels in, but chances are they will and no one will win in 2014. In fact it will flow over a lot longer for Canberra if they make a aissue out of this. They have already made a false statement, lied to the media, who knows how this is gong to blow up in our face if this gets even uglier.
I want them to release him. hopefully come to an agreement with the Broncs for some kind of return and let him go. But I do see why the Raiders are wanting to dig their heels in, as enough is enough, but they are going about it all wrong.
Anyway.. Long post..
nopatience101
NRL Captain
- Mar 4, 2008
- 3,470
- 6,333
Someone forgot to tell the kid an assurance had been made with the Raiders that he would return for next season, whether that's the result of miscommunication with tony or an eagerness on the Raiders part to make an announcement that preempted the Broncos announcement.
Cheers, Im guessing Costigan still turned up to work rather than chucking the club, fans and NRL the bird from the rooftop, he turned up for meetings about his future at the club etc. If Dugan hadnt been rewarded by the NRL for his actions I doubt Fergo would've taken the same route, probably would've turned up for work for a month and a half till his iron clad clause could be activated, (it's couldn't till his new contract kicked in on nov 1st).
With Dugan they've set a precedent that if a player wants out all they have to do is not show up to work till they get sacked and the NRL will let them sign with another club, not a good look for anyone.
Carney is in another stratosphere due to his mile long rap sheet
- Feb 27, 2010
- 30,045
- 12,321
Someone forgot to tell the kid? Shouldn't they ask him first?
Even if they discussed it with Ayoub and he committed to talk to his client and convince him to stay in Canberra for the remaining year of his contract, the Raiders were all too eager to jump the gun and beat the Broncos to an announcement, precipitating something that will end up hurting them big time!
After this public declaration, there is no turning back, and I am really eager to see what this famous clause is. Wouldn't surprise me if things go like subsligh says, and it would surprise me even less if Don Furner said one thing to Milford when he extended his contract, and had something else put in the contract by his lawyers. He has form!
Bucking Beads
International Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 24,608
- 7,911
This is a mess.
Thibaùlt
BRL Player
- Nov 27, 2013
- 57
- 10
If the Raiders had clean hands in regard to contracts, maybe pushing the 'value of contracts' might have got some credit.
But their track history with signing a contracted Ferguson, signing a contracted Ricky Stuart, sacking contracted players Dugan and Ferguson, signing Dayne Weston but then not registering the contract, sacking a contracted Dave Furner and basically forcing a contracted Matt Orford to retire.
Not to mention the Papalii contract saga.
The contract game is a dirty one.
You can't walk all over contracts, and then preach their value when it suites you.
But their track history with signing a contracted Ferguson, signing a contracted Ricky Stuart, sacking contracted players Dugan and Ferguson, signing Dayne Weston but then not registering the contract, sacking a contracted Dave Furner and basically forcing a contracted Matt Orford to retire.
Not to mention the Papalii contract saga.
The contract game is a dirty one.
You can't walk all over contracts, and then preach their value when it suites you.
- Jan 25, 2013
- 25,705
- 30,048
IMO, the problem is the clause uses the word 'deteriorating' in regards to his father's health. And that's where the dispute is. Anthony would have said that he's worried about his father, and the Raiders said "tell you what, if things go bad, if he gets any worse, you're free to go". The Raiders are claiming he's gotten better, so the clause conditions have not been met.
FWIW this is the only leg the Raiders have to stand on, in that the clause is only activated if he gets worse. Legally they seem to be in the right. But it will be disputed in that the clause was there to protect Milford's interest in his family, and that even though his father hasn't gotten any worse, at least on the surface, as we all know with heart issues, it's like being on a tightrope and the next attack could be a second away. For this reason, the clause doesn't protect Milford, and arguably only allows Milford to be release potentially once it's too late, and therefore that will be the basis for the fight.
Or of course the Raiders should accept that it's a fight that regardless of the outcome they'll look bad, do what's best for the kid, and just drop the bone. I'd be incredibly surprised, stumped even, if Stuart's ego allows this.
- Aug 5, 2013
- 4,167
- 2,819
