NEWS Wayne Bennett hits Brisbane Broncos with $400k claim

[Foordy]

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

then it isn't even close to being a fact ... i think you need to learn the definition of the word "fact" so here it is, key word in bold:

fact
/fakt/
noun

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.
   "the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
   synonyms:reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude;
2. information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
   "even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts"
   synonyms:detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point, factor, feature, characteristic, respect, ingredient, attribute, circumstance, consideration, aspect, facet;
3. used to refer to a particular situation under discussion.
   noun: the fact that
   "despite the fact that I'm so tired, sleep is elusive"

 

[Cult]

then it isn't even close to being a fact ... i think you need to learn the definition of the word "fact" so here it is, key word in bold:

fact
/fakt/
noun

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.
   "the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
   synonyms:reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude;
2. information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
   "even the most inventive journalism peters out without facts, and in this case there were no facts"
   synonyms:detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point, factor, feature, characteristic, respect, ingredient, attribute, circumstance, consideration, aspect, facet;
3. used to refer to a particular situation under discussion.
   noun: the fact that
   "despite the fact that I'm so tired, sleep is elusive"

Meh, I don’t need to prove it. There’s been a lot of bullshit spread by the media regarding this whole situation that has been blown up by shitty supporters who eat that crap up. It came from Seibolds mouth months ago when he told an old friend who I have also known for years. It’s a CQ connection. That’s all I need to know to understand this situation is nothing like how it has played out in the media. I’m not going to take the company that has a massive interest in looking like the good guy as gospel either.

 

[Foordy]

Meh, I don’t need to prove it. There’s been a lot of bullshit spread by the media regarding this whole situation that has been blown up by shitty supporters who eat that crap up. It came from Seibolds mouth months ago when he told an old friend who I have also known for years. It’s a CQ connection. That’s all I need to know to understand this situation is nothing like how it has played out in the media. I’m not going to take the company that has a massive interest in looking like the good guy as gospel either.

hearsay from a friend of a friend is not fact (there is a very good reason why this is not permitted in court)

but you are prepared to take the word of an individual that has a massive interest in looking like the good guy as gospel?

 

[Cult]

hearsay from a friend of a friend is not fact (there is a very good reason why this is not permitted in court)

but you are prepared to take the word of an individual that has a massive interest in looking like the good guy as gospel?

I’m prepared to take the word of someone very close to him whose bias would lean more toward Anthony than anyone else regarding where he will be in 2019. He wasn’t wrong

 

[Foordy]

I’m prepared to take the word of someone very close to him whose bias would lean more toward Anthony than anyone else regarding where he will be in 2019. He wasn’t wrong

still opinion not fact

 

[Cult]

still opinion not fact

Ok sorry. It is my opinion that someone very close to Anthony has told me months ago that he was locked in for the job and would more than likely be here in 2019. Better? Because it doesn’t really make sense.

 

[lynx000]

Ok. Well I don't believe you but it's not important enough for me to research so hopefully we can leave it at that. Though if you provide a link to a shortish article, I'll read it.

Either way, doesn't change my basic premise one iota. There is absolutely no reason this will or should effect the performance of the respective teams.

Seibold has 1 or 2 years of grace because, Bird, Boyd, Milford and probably Gillett are on massive overs. Bennett has no excuse at all. If Souffs don't make the top 4, it'll be an indication Bennett stayed not only at the Broncos a year too long, but in the business a year too long.

You really should not comment on shit you know nothing about (just for future reference):

https://www.afr.com/business/legal/law-council-of-australia-rejects-success-fees-20160407-go0lca

 

[Eta Carinae]

You really should not comment on shit you know nothing about (just for future reference):

https://www.afr.com/business/legal/law-council-of-australia-rejects-success-fees-20160407-go0lca

good one! I have been perfectly honest about not knowing the specifics in Australia. I know that isn't how it works in the 2 of the 3 largest economies in the world so I doubt what you are saying is true. But if you provide a link, not hidden behind a paywall, I will read it.

The fact you provided a link to an article hidden behind a paywall has reinforced by opinion, that what you are stating is untrue. But I really don't know. Provide a link to an article not hidden behind a paywall please. Or just drop it. Either way is ok.

Regardless, this litigation will be no excuse whatsoever for Bennett at Souffs. They have a strong and very well balanced team. Better, or certainly much better balanced, than he has left Siebold with.

 

[lynx000]

good one! I have been perfectly honest about not knowing the specifics in Australia. I know that isn't how it works in the 2 of the 3 largest economies in the world so I doubt what you are saying is true. But if you provide a link, not hidden behind a paywall, I will read it.

The fact you provided a link to an article hidden behind a paywall has reinforced by opinion, that what you are stating is untrue. But I really don't know. Provide a link to an article not hidden behind a paywall please. Or just drop it. Either way is ok.

Regardless, this litigation will be no excuse whatsoever for Bennett at Souffs. They have a strong and very well balanced team. Better, or certainly much better balanced, than he has left Siebold with.

Oh so it is my problem that you cannot figure out how to access the article. Okay here is another option for you:

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PrecedentAULA/2016/81.html

That is a rather lengthy article, and because I am not sure of how good your attention span is, I have cut and past the relevant passage and highlighted the key bit for you, just to make it easy for you.


‘NOT JUST A BUSINESS’: THE DEBATE AROUND CONTINGENCY FEES
By Michael Wheelahan QC
On 7 March 2002, the Hon Justice Michael Kirby addressed a function for the presentation of the Australian Law Awards in Sydney. Justice Kirby spoke of a time when the Australian legal profession was not so profit-oriented, of the days of highly personal involvement with a wide mix of clients of modest means, and of the days when the words pro bono were unknown, because fee waiver was such a common fact of life. In his concluding words, Justice Kirby stated:[1]

[2] The Working Group advocated the introduction of percentage-based contingency fee arrangements as ‘an additional option’ for clients to fund access to legal services. In April 2016, the Law Council decided not to accept these recommendations.

The purpose of this article is not to weigh the pros and cons of contingency fee arrangements. Much that might be said to support such arrangements has been set out in the Law Council of Australia Working Group’s final report, and in other papers, such as a position paper prepared by the Law Institute of Victoria, which was released on 17 February 2016.[3] The purpose of this article is to set out four reasons why percentage-based contingency fee arrangements are unnecessary, and undesirable, and why the Law Council was correct to reject their introduction.
The four principal objections to percentage-based contingency fee arrangements are:

(a) there is no apparent need for any alternative basis to charge fees to clients;
(b) a contingency fee arrangement treats a piece of litigation as a transaction, with no necessary relationship to the amount of professional time or effort required to prosecute the client’s case;
(c) contingency fee arrangements are inconsistent with the obligations of lawyers, and counsel in particular, to be independent of the client, and of the client’s cause; and
(d) the introduction of contingency fees will provide further opportunities for unscrupulous lawyers to charge amounts which are not proper, fair, reasonable or consistent with the standards of professional behaviour to which lawyers should aspire.

So you can take from that that contingency fees have never been allowed in Australia, that there was some push for their introduction from around 2013/4 and the Law Council of Australia confirmed that they would not be allowed, leaving the status quo in place.

Also, it is actually legislated in NSW:
LEGAL PROFESSION UNIFORM LAW (NSW) - SECT 183

Contingency fees are prohibited
183 Contingency fees are prohibited

(1) A law practice must not enter into a costs agreement under which the amount payable to the law practice, or any part of that amount, is calculated by reference to the amount of any award or settlement or the value of any property that may be recovered in any proceedings to which the agreement relates.

Civil penalty: 100 penalty units.​

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the extent that the costs agreement adopts an applicable fixed costs legislative provision.
(3) A contravention of subsection (1) by a law practice is capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct on the part of any principal of the law practice or any legal practitioner associate or foreign lawyer associate involved in the contravention.​

lawyer​

 

[Marty Deutschmann]

I honestly think the biggest issue for the Broncos was the fact that he completely undermined the organisation and acted out, calling his own independent press conference, in Broncos colours, wearing their brand but speaking out of turn and essentially against his employer.
That would be quite sackable.
His press conference wasn't signed off or sanctioned. He stated a position that was against the club's interests that had been agreed to.

 

[Morkel]

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.

Bennett was told what 1.5 years in advance? Not that he was no longer required as coach, but that his coaching career would be over. Griffin could at least get a gig elsewhere. And 1.5 years is a crock - do you honestly believe there was any scenario that Bennett was coaching us in 2019 after turning down their offer?

Maguire, Walters, JD, any coincidence that they were all available immediately? Bellamy, surprise surprise, was available as of 2019 too. Bennett was always going to be shown the door before his contract were up, the Broncos were too gutless to admit it because of the standing Bennett has, and at that point it was no different to what happened to Griffin.

 

[Huge]

Oh so it is my problem that you cannot figure out how to access the article. Okay here is another option for you:

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PrecedentAULA/2016/81.html

That is a rather lengthy article, and because I am not sure of how good your attention span is, I have cut and past the relevant passage and highlighted the key bit for you, just to make it easy for you.


‘NOT JUST A BUSINESS’: THE DEBATE AROUND CONTINGENCY FEES
By Michael Wheelahan QC
On 7 March 2002, the Hon Justice Michael Kirby addressed a function for the presentation of the Australian Law Awards in Sydney. Justice Kirby spoke of a time when the Australian legal profession was not so profit-oriented, of the days of highly personal involvement with a wide mix of clients of modest means, and of the days when the words pro bono were unknown, because fee waiver was such a common fact of life. In his concluding words, Justice Kirby stated:[1]

[2] The Working Group advocated the introduction of percentage-based contingency fee arrangements as ‘an additional option’ for clients to fund access to legal services. In April 2016, the Law Council decided not to accept these recommendations.

The purpose of this article is not to weigh the pros and cons of contingency fee arrangements. Much that might be said to support such arrangements has been set out in the Law Council of Australia Working Group’s final report, and in other papers, such as a position paper prepared by the Law Institute of Victoria, which was released on 17 February 2016.[3] The purpose of this article is to set out four reasons why percentage-based contingency fee arrangements are unnecessary, and undesirable, and why the Law Council was correct to reject their introduction.
The four principal objections to percentage-based contingency fee arrangements are:

(a) there is no apparent need for any alternative basis to charge fees to clients;
(b) a contingency fee arrangement treats a piece of litigation as a transaction, with no necessary relationship to the amount of professional time or effort required to prosecute the client’s case;
(c) contingency fee arrangements are inconsistent with the obligations of lawyers, and counsel in particular, to be independent of the client, and of the client’s cause; and
(d) the introduction of contingency fees will provide further opportunities for unscrupulous lawyers to charge amounts which are not proper, fair, reasonable or consistent with the standards of professional behaviour to which lawyers should aspire.

So you can take from that that contingency fees have never been allowed in Australia, that there was some push for their introduction from around 2013/4 and the Law Council of Australia confirmed that they would not be allowed, leaving the status quo in place.

Also, it is actually legislated in NSW:
LEGAL PROFESSION UNIFORM LAW (NSW) - SECT 183

Contingency fees are prohibited
183 Contingency fees are prohibited

(1) A law practice must not enter into a costs agreement under which the amount payable to the law practice, or any part of that amount, is calculated by reference to the amount of any award or settlement or the value of any property that may be recovered in any proceedings to which the agreement relates.

Civil penalty: 100 penalty units.​

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the extent that the costs agreement adopts an applicable fixed costs legislative provision.
(3) A contravention of subsection (1) by a law practice is capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct on the part of any principal of the law practice or any legal practitioner associate or foreign lawyer associate involved in the contravention.​

lawyer​

I'm convinced!

 

[Huge]

I honestly think the biggest issue for the Broncos was the fact that he completely undermined the organisation and acted out, calling his own independent press conference, in Broncos colours, wearing their brand but speaking out of turn and essentially against his employer.
That would be quite sackable.
His press conference wasn't signed off or sanctioned. He stated a position that was against the club's interests that had been agreed to.

Huh? He said he was still committed to coaching in 2019, the same position the club had announced! How could that be against the club's interest? How on earth could that be against his employer? How could that be at odds with what both he and the club have stated? Wtf are you smoking? Crystal Meth?

 

[lynx000]

I'm convinced!

You sir, would not have carried on with a non-informed position on a topic for any period of time, let alone as long as this has gone on.

 

[Porthoz]

Bennett was told what 1.5 years in advance? Not that he was no longer required as coach, but that his coaching career would be over. Griffin could at least get a gig elsewhere. And 1.5 years is a crock - do you honestly believe there was any scenario that Bennett was coaching us in 2019 after turning down their offer?

Maguire, Walters, JD, any coincidence that they were all available immediately? Bellamy, surprise surprise, was available as of 2019 too. Bennett was always going to be shown the door before his contract were up, the Broncos were too gutless to admit it because of the standing Bennett has, and at that point it was no different to what happened to Griffin.

Man, the lengths some of you people go to... it's tinfoil hat central in this thread.

 

[Jason Simmons]

I’d like to see Anthony Siebold do well...

(Ducks for cover...)

 

[Huge]

You sir, would not have carried on with a non-informed position on a topic for any period of time, let alone as long as this has gone on.

I had to re-read this because I wasn't sure I would agree ha ha...but I do.

 

[Marty Deutschmann]

Huh? He said he was still committed to coaching in 2019, the same position the club had announced! How could that be against the club's interest? How on earth could that be against his employer? How could that be at odds with what both he and the club have stated? Wtf are you smoking? Crystal Meth?

The fact that they were scheduled to announce the swap had been organised they afternoon with S to be announced as 19 coach