NEWS Wayne Bennett hits Brisbane Broncos with $400k claim

[Browny]

This whole saga deserves Lionel Hutz to be representing one of the parties

 

[big k]

This whole saga deserves Lionel Hutz to be representing one of the parties

And the other using the Wookie defense

 

[Porthoz]

I wonder if there's any real breach if WB said to a player, should I become coach in 2019 I would likely move you to fullback(or whatever). If he said, hypothetically speaking I probably would do etc etc. What if he said, if I were your coach I'd tell you to take the offer (whatever it is). I can't see how the act of simply talking with an opposition teams players could be enough to justify a sacking.

I would think he would have had to be giving them definitive advice or instructions and making decisions about their future roles. He may well have but I cannot know this unless hard copy exists, recordings etc. Otherwise he may just be shooting the breeze with the players, pure conjecture. Like you say, I hope it goes to court too but not for the reason you put forward. I'd like to see the Bronco's shenanigans exposed, at least about this matter. I have a feeling they will agree to settle the dispute quietly and not because it will hurt the brand due to negative publicity over the matter but because I believe they have something about which to be ashamed.

I'm surprised you would say something like this. What has so far transpired that indicates the bold would be the case?
Everything points to the contrary, and you're making assumptions that have no base in any type of evidence, even of the most basic kind (anecdotal).

Yes, based on what is known (not proven), I don't think the Broncos are the ones with shenanigans to be ashamed of. However, I don't want the case to go to court to prove my opinion, but to expose the truth.

 

[Cult]

I'm surprised you would say something like this. What has so far transpired that indicates the bold would be the case?
Everything points to the contrary, and you're making assumptions that have no base in any type of evidence, even of the most basic kind (anecdotal).

Yes, based on what is known (not proven), I don't think the Broncos are the ones with shenanigans to be ashamed of. However, I don't want the case to go to court to prove my opinion, but to expose the truth.

Sounds like you’re drinking the News Corp kool-aid. There’s no way they weren’t actively looking for a way to get Bennett out for the 2019 season. Shenanigans were played by both sides.

 

[Huge]

I'm surprised you would say something like this. What has so far transpired that indicates the bold would be the case?
Everything points to the contrary, and you're making assumptions that have no base in any type of evidence, even of the most basic kind (anecdotal).

Yes, based on what is known (not proven), I don't think the Broncos are the ones with shenanigans to be ashamed of. However, I don't want the case to go to court to prove my opinion, but to expose the truth.

I too would like to hear the truth and I do believe the Bronco's board have been dishonest and influenced by external voices. I don't have evidence of that but like all others I am entitled to use my intuition. If a court case supported my view, or yours for that matter it would merely be an interesting consequence.

You ask why I think the board has been dodgy and I say to that that I believe they were actively working on trading WB before his contract was out and likely they indicated they were going to send him on his way. Further, they likely wanted him to move on without actually paying him by telling him Souths would start paying his wages instead of them. In fact they may have told him, we'll chip in 400k if you please **** off early and then decided they'd use his supposed breach to save that money.

No matter, I just want any smelly laundry aired irrespective of the owner of said laundry. You go on believing WBs a **** and I'll wait until evidence of cuntheadedness emerges.

 

[Porthoz]

I too would like to hear the truth and I do believe the Bronco's board have been dishonest and influenced by external voices. I don't have evidence of that but like all others I am entitled to use my intuition. If a court case supported my view, or yours for that matter it would merely be an interesting consequence.

You ask why I think the board has been dodgy and I say to that that I believe they were actively working on trading WB before his contract was out and likely they indicated they were going to send him on his way. Further, they likely wanted him to move on without actually paying him by telling him Souths would start paying his wages instead of them. In fact they may have told him, we'll chip in 400k if you please **** off early and then decided they'd use his supposed breach to save that money.

No matter, I just want any smelly laundry aired irrespective of the owner of said laundry. You go on believing WBs a **** and I'll wait until evidence of cuntheadedness emerges.

They clearly indicated more than 6 months ago that they didn't want to extend him, but recognised his value outside of the field (which I do too) by offering him a long term position in the management team. They also indicated publicly that they would respect Wayne's desire to remain as the Broncos coach until 2020.
The fact they were keen for an early trade which would benefit all parties, but mostly the Broncos, is not only their right, it's their duty!

The question is how negotiations about the coaches trade, actually went behind closed doors.
Whether you like it or not, everything points to an agreement between all parties for said trade, and WB's decision to torpedo it at the last moment with his press conference announcing he was staying.
What the reason is behind that, may indeed be the root of the whole dispute... but everything indicates he was the one playing shenanigans behind the scenes.

That bit in bold is absolute conjecture without a single shred of evidence (not even anecdotal), and reflects your desire to believe in WB's integrity above all. Meanwhile, you go on believing Paul White is a ****, and I'll wait until evidence of cuntheadedness emerges.

And no @Cult3 , I don't swallow News Corp koolaid, I've tried (within my admitted bias and anecdotal knowledge of the Anthony Griffin sacking) to come to the most logical conclusion to this matter with the information at hand from the parties at stake, not the spin the journos put on it.

 

[Morkel]

They clearly indicated more than 6 months ago that they didn't want to extend him, but recognised his value outside of the field (which I do too) by offering him a long term position in the management team. They also indicated publicly that they would respect Wayne's desire to remain as the Broncos coach until 2020.
The fact they were keen for an early trade which would benefit all parties, but mostly the Broncos, is not only their right, it's their duty!

The question is how negotiations about the coaches trade, actually went behind closed doors.
Whether you like it or not, everything points to an agreement between all parties for said trade, and WB's decision to torpedo it at the last moment with his press conference announcing he was staying.
What the reason is behind that, may indeed be the root of the whole dispute... but everything indicates he was the one playing shenanigans behind the scenes.

That bit in bold is absolute conjecture without a single shred of evidence (not even anecdotal), and reflects your desire to believe in WB's integrity above all. Meanwhile, you go on believing Paul White is a ****, and I'll wait until evidence of cuntheadedness emerges.

And no @Cult3 , I don't swallow News Corp koolaid, I've tried (within my admitted bias and anecdotal knowledge of the Anthony Griffin sacking) to come to the most logical conclusion to this matter with the information at hand from the parties at stake, not the spin the journos put on it.

I’m surprised you aren’t up in arms. Admittedly, one of your claimed reasons for not liking the Griffin saga was because Bennett said he’d never replace a coach under contract. But you were still unhappy with how Griffin has shafted prematurely while still legally contracted to coach the Broncos. The fact that you’re happy that Bennett was shafted in almost identical shows where your true bias is. Unless I missed the posts of yours berating the Broncos for attempting to offload Bennett early, before any of the talking-with-Souths info was confirmed.

 

[WASSHHH]

That sentence in bold right there, says it all. He either breached the contract or he didn't.
As far as I'm concerned, I hope the Broncos call the bluff and let the courts decide... if it gets that far, which I highly doubt.

There is the ethical side of things. The board/management are entirely within their right to believe Bennett is no longer capable of delivering the results the Broncos expect (this isn't ageism, it's based on what has been demonstrated round by round on the field since 2015), and as far as I know, the offer to move Bennett up in the hierarchy of the Broncos on a long term position, was a show of respect and acknowledgement of his worth outside of the field.

The Broncos were entitled as an employer, to look for a new coach at any time they want, regardless of whether Bennett was contracted or not. Whether they were right about looking to replace Bennett is not a legal question, but the future will tell whether it was a sensible decision.

No matter what they did behind the scenes, it's definitely not a breach of contract until they actually sack the coach and replace him without justification, which does not appear to be the case, as there is evidence that Bennett was talking to Souths and its players about the 2019 season.

If it was without knowledge from the Broncos, it is a breach of contract.
If it was with knowledge from the Broncos, under the condition the early swap was going to happen, it became a breach of contract as soon as Bennett decided he wasn't moving after all. (I believe this is what probably happened)

You touch on a very pertinent point throughout this post that I think a lot of people are overlooking.

The Broncos, as the employer, set the rules of Bennett’s (and all their other staff for that matter) employment.

If the Broncos allow Bennett to work with the QLD, Australia, NZ, the All-Stars or the English teams at the same time as coaching the Broncos - that’s their decision to make and should be of no concern to anyone else. With the blessing of the Broncos, in his capacity as coach of any one of those teams, Bennett can do what he likes.

But the minute he starts doing anything, anything whatsoever, with the Souths franchise whilst still contracted at the Broncos without their permission - that’s not fine.

I really don’t see how it’s that complicated. Further, it has nothing to do with sentiment and everything to do with what is legal. In his 20 odd years as Broncos coach, Bennett hasn’t earned the right to be working (in any capacity) with one of the Broncos direct competitors whilst still under contract with the Broncos, not to mention the fact that this competitor is the very same one he would soon be coaching on a permanent basis (proposed 2020). That fact only makes his behaviour even worse.

But if people are so hung up on allowing sentiment to influence their position on this because “Bennett helped build the Broncos”; I’d like to know how those same people felt when Bennett almost pulled a SBW to leave for the Roosters. He didn’t seem to care too much about the club, his players, his support staff or the fans then.

Now that the club has, according to some, done the dirty on Bennett; why are these people willing to hold the club entirely responsible for what’s transpired, seemingly forgetting Bennett came very close to abandoning the club at the eleventh hour when it suited him to do so?

 

[Huge]

You touch on a very pertinent point throughout this post that I think a lot of people are overlooking.

The Broncos, as the employer, set the rules of Bennett’s (and all their other staff for that matter) employment.

If the Broncos allow Bennett to work with the QLD, Australia, NZ, the All-Stars or the English teams at the same time as coaching the Broncos - that’s their decision to make and should be of no concern to anyone else. With the blessing of the Broncos, in his capacity as coach of any one of those teams, Bennett can do what he likes.

But the minute he starts doing anything, anything whatsoever, with the Souths franchise whilst still contracted at the Broncos without their permission - that’s not fine.

I really don’t see how it’s that complicated. Further, it has nothing to do with sentiment and everything to do with what is legal. In his 20 odd years as Broncos coach, Bennett hasn’t earned the right to be working (in any capacity) with one of the Broncos direct competitors whilst still under contract with the Broncos, not to mention the fact that this competitor is the very same one he would soon be coaching on a permanent basis (proposed 2020). That fact only makes his behaviour even worse.

But if people are so hung up on allowing sentiment to influence their position on this because “Bennett helped build the Broncos”; I’d like to know how those same people felt when Bennett almost pulled a SBW to leave for the Roosters. He didn’t seem to care too much about the club, his players, his support staff or the fans then.

Now that the club has, according to some, done the dirty on Bennett; why are these people willing to hold the club entirely responsible for what’s transpired, seemingly forgetting Bennett came very close to abandoning the club at the eleventh hour when it suited him to do so?

I don't know to whom you refer when saying 'people are holding the Bronco's entirely responsible'. You and I don't know all the facts and I haven't seen anyone blame any one party responsible for the entirety. I haven't seen evidence WB has been or was 'working with Souths' in any capacity rather he may have been simply been saying SHOULD I be forced to leave or am sacked I MAY need this that or the other etc etc. He didn't know at the time but clearly the Bronco's were working to have him leave early. It seems to me that they wanted their cake and to eat it at the same time. Whatever is true let's all hope the truth about all parties comes out. As a betting man I'd wager the Bronco's have been sinners too.

 

[Gaz]

I find it amazing that some would assume an entity as professional as our club would dismiss its current coach for breach of contract or any other reason without sufficient evidence and without the ability to produce that evidence if and when it was required to do so.

 

[Huge]

I find it amazing that some would assume an entity as professional as our club would dismiss its current coach for breach of contract or any other reason without sufficient evidence and without the ability to produce that evidence if and when it was required to do so.

Yet it isn't outside of the realms of possibility.

 

[Huge]

I find it amazing that some would assume an entity as professional as our club would dismiss its current coach for breach of contract or any other reason without sufficient evidence and without the ability to produce that evidence if and when it was required to do so.

Yet every working day a court, specifically formed for the purpose adjudicates on that very topic, unfair dismissal. Weird that it's existence was necessary with so many professional organizations in Australia, huh?

 

[Porthoz]

I’m surprised you aren’t up in arms. Admittedly, one of your claimed reasons for not liking the Griffin saga was because Bennett said he’d never replace a coach under contract. But you were still unhappy with how Griffin has shafted prematurely while still legally contracted to coach the Broncos. The fact that you’re happy that Bennett was shafted in almost identical shows where your true bias is. Unless I missed the posts of yours berating the Broncos for attempting to offload Bennett early, before any of the talking-with-Souths info was confirmed.

Selective memory much? I never blamed the Broncos for looking for another coach at any stage, and the circumstances are anything but identical.

Bennett was told well in advance (1.5 years) they were not going to extend his contract, but wanted to move him into a management position. It's not even close to what happened with Hook, who unlike Bennett, showed total integrity in the whole affair!
On the contrary, Bennett was the one who initiated the contacts with certain Broncos board members, shafting Griffin in the process, after saying he would never replace a coach under contract.

I can however say the exact opposite of you and a few others, who were nowhere near as up in arms at the time, as you are now... talk about hypocrisy.

 

[Cult]

Selective memory much? I never blamed the Broncos for looking for another coach at any stage, and the circumstances are anything but identical.

Bennett was told well in advance (1.5 years) they were not going to extend his contract, but wanted to move him into a management position. It's not even close to what happened with Hook, who unlike Bennett, showed total integrity in the whole affair!
On the contrary, Bennett was the one who initiated the contacts with certain Broncos board members, shafting Griffin in the process, after saying he would never replace a coach under contract.

I can however say the exact opposite of you and a few others, who were nowhere near as up in arms at the time, as you are now... talk about hypocrisy.

Seibold has been in contact with White about this job for a while now. The fake coach search thing was done so White could look unbiased before hiring another one of his mates. White wasn’t going to let seibold sit out a year and with the help of News Corp, set out to create an untenable relationship so Bennett would leave. Who do you think kept leaking things? Despite this, he wanted to stay so the board found a way to get him out.

 

[WASSHHH]

Seibold has been in contact with White about this job for a while now. The fake coach search thing was done so White could look unbiased before hiring another one of his mates. White wasn’t going to let seibold sit out a year and with the help of News Corp, set out to create an untenable relationship so Bennett would leave. Who do you think kept leaking things? Despite this, he wanted to stay so the board found a way to get him out.

From what you’ve written, a casual fan may think our CEO is Saddam Hussein, not Paul White.

I want to clear that up for them.

Paul White doesn’t just make the rules and go around doing whatever he likes.

There is a board that makes decisions. Darren Lockyer, one of Bennett’s favourite sons, sits on that same board. In fact, there are six board members in total, tasked with making decisions. Paul White has only one vote, his vote does not carry 100% weighting. This is called Corporate Governance.

Corporate Governance aside; Paul White and Anthony Griffin were Best Man at each other’s wedding. Despite this, the Broncos board decided Griffin wasn’t the best man for the job (pardon the pun) and moved him on. White, as CEO, had to deliver the decision made by the board.

White and Bennett had an existing relationship from their time in the QPS. Despite this, the Brisbane board have decided Bennett is no longer the man for the job and moved him on. White, as CEO, had to deliver the decision made by the board.

If Paul White wasn’t acting on the decisions made by the Broncos board and had gone rogue, he would have lost his job a long time ago. But no, quite the opposite has happened. White is still there, his job looking more and more stable with each passing day.

@Huge asked last night who I was referring to when I said there were some on here who hold the Broncos entirely responsible for this, excusing Bennett completely. Your post answers his question.

 

[Cult]

From what you’ve written, a casual fan may think our CEO is Saddam Hussein, not Paul White.

I want to clear that up for them.

Paul White doesn’t just make the rules and go around doing whatever he likes.

There is a board that makes decisions. Darren Lockyer, one of Bennett’s favourite sons, sits on that same board. In fact, there are six board members in total, tasked with making decisions. Paul White has only one vote, his vote does not carry 100% weighting. This is called Corporate Governance.

Corporate Governance aside; Paul White and Anthony Griffin were Best Man at each other’s wedding. Despite this, the Broncos board decided Griffin wasn’t the best man for the job (pardon the pun) and moved him on. White, as CEO, had to deliver the decision made by the board.

White and Bennett had an existing relationship from their time in the QPS. Despite this, the Brisbane board have decided Bennett is no longer the man for the job and moved him on. White, as CEO, had to deliver the decision made by the board.

If Paul White wasn’t acting on the decisions made by the Broncos board and had gone rogue, he would have lost his job a long time ago. But no, quite the opposite has happened. White is still there, his job looking more and more stable with each passing day.

@Huge asked last night who I was referring to when I said there were some on here who hold the Broncos entirely responsible for this, excusing Bennett completely. Your post answers his question.

People have pointed out where Bennett went wrong numerous times. Pointing out where the board also went wrong doesn’t mean I hold them entirely accountable. I have made numerous posts stating that both Bennett and the board are to blame for the drama. And no, White isn’t the only board member at fault. They had an agreement with Wayne about him being involved in the transition and went behind his back to sign Bellamy. That’s where this began. And Seibold had the job well before it was announced, that’s a fact.

 

[lynx000]

People have pointed out where Bennett went wrong numerous times. Pointing out where the board also went wrong doesn’t mean I hold them entirely accountable. I have made numerous posts stating that both Bennett and the board are to blame for the drama. And no, White isn’t the only board member at fault. They had an agreement with Wayne about him being involved in the transition and went behind his back to sign Bellamy. That’s where this began. And Seibold had the job well before it was announced, that’s a fact.

I am interested to see the evidence you have that enables you to assert that it is a fact that Seibold had the job before it was announced (the reality is, of course he had the job before it was announced, because the decision had been made prior to the announcement). If you really mean that he had the job prior to the interview process, that sounds awfully like an opinion, so I am very interested in your evidence.

 

[Cult]

I am interested to see the evidence you have that enables you to assert that it is a fact that Seibold had the job before it was announced (the reality is, of course he had the job before it was announced, because the decision had been made prior to the announcement). If you really mean that he had the job prior to the interview process, that sounds awfully like an opinion, so I am very interested in your evidence.

There is no physical evidence. Only a couple of witnesses close to Seibold from his Capras days. That’s all I can really say. Certain posters with credibility regarding sources have hinted at it for months now as well