NEWS Why Haas Rejected 6m Offer

[Sproj]

You're demanding some kind of slave-like fealty to the club, who - in the eyes of many players - have acted very shabbily over the last few years, going back to the treatment of Wayne Bennett. You might even wonder who the club is, given it's had a complete overhaul since then. Is it Karl Morris and News Corp?

We tried to bulk poach the Melbourne Storm, including their coach and captain, and managed to pinch their CEO. We promised the captaincy to Payne (never going to happen), Patty (might happen) and God knows who else, probably Tom Dearden at one stage. Kotoni got baited and switched with a promise of playing 5/8th (never going to happen), etc.

We were the laughing stock of the league when Boyd was lying on the ground watching tries being scored. Then we became pathetic.

The club has everything to prove right now. It's coming off a wooden spoon, which could easily have extended into last year. We've had serious money issues. And players who were touted as the "future of the club" like Tom Dearden weren't even offered contracts. Popular characters like Lodge, Macca and TPJ got horsetraded amidst furious denials. And we sacked a coach we'd only just poached from Souths, amid a hullabaloo of weird sex rumours.

The club has been rotten to the very core, and is still yet to deserve respect. Some of us see signs we're beginning to earn it, but we're the optimists. It's a wonder Payne hasn't already jumped ship. Let's give him credit to be one of the few still clinging to the mast.

Amidst all of this, Herbie stuck loyal when others ran and you constantly bag him out. What gives? This is a reason why I really hope we keep him, he is Manu-like with massive upside and a guy you can play anywhere in the backline and get really high quality.

 

[McHunt]

Amidst all of this, Herbie stuck loyal when others ran and you constantly bag him out. What gives? This is a reason why I really hope we keep him, he is Manu-like with massive upside and a guy you can play anywhere in the backline and get really high quality.

I've never bagged anything about Herbie except his limited ball skills, while advocating moving him to the wing where they wouldn't be an issue. I've even said he might be a top 10 winger and worth paying top 10 winger rates. I don't rate him as a centre, but that opinion is liable to change as new facts emerge.

Maybe I should post my one opinion on this one player more often. I know @theshed wants me to.

But for now, let's not turn yet another thread into a Herbie suck and **** fest.

 

[abashii]

It's an interesting one. I'm not sure Orr would've been obligated to tell Payne that. I can see how he could quite easily raise a defence against it. No idea which way it would go.

He's obliged to act in his client's best interests, listed specifically under the NRL's accredited agents scheme rules and (as I understand it) as a legal requirement as an agent (although I don't know if it's under specific legislation or common law and any searches are drowned out in references to corporations law and accounting agents etc). What defence would you see Orr being able to raise showing that advising Payne to sign a long term management deal a day before new NRL rules allowing for players to leave management contracts came into place? Not being snarky here, I'm genuinely unaware of how those actions are consistent with acting in Payne's best interests but I'm neither a lawyer nor particularly competent in legal matters.

 

[Brotherdu]

Our team is on the up with alot of young guys coming through when Payne's contract is up we could be a top 4 team.
In 3 years time Keary and Tedesco will be on their last legs at 34-35 years old JWH will be gone.. obviously they will have other players come through but I don't see them being a force in 3 years Specially if Ikin can have a chat to his good mate Ben Walker and get his son over here to replace Reynolds

Tedesco and Keary are currently 29 and 30. So not so old.

 

[McHunt]

He's obliged to act in his client's best interests, listed specifically under the NRL's accredited agents scheme rules and (as I understand it) as a legal requirement as an agent (although I don't know if it's under specific legislation or common law and any searches are drowned out in references to corporations law and accounting agents etc). What defence would you see Orr being able to raise showing that advising Payne to sign a long term management deal a day before new NRL rules allowing for players to leave management contracts came into place? Not being snarky here, I'm genuinely unaware of how those actions are consistent with acting in Payne's best interests but I'm neither a lawyer nor particularly competent in legal matters.

I've never known an agent to argue against retaining their services. Their job description is leech.

Apart from that, we need to hear Orr's side of the story before we assume he has no side to the story.

 

[Foordy]

Ahhhhh shit…

He's not disputing his contract with us ... especially after we gave him a pay rise we weren't obligated to.

He just doesn't want pay his manager commission for the next 3 years.

I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure for him to win a case against us, should he challenge his Broncos contract in court (which he isn't doing), he would need to prove we didn't act legally.

 

[lynx000]

It's an interesting one. I'm not sure Orr would've been obligated to tell Payne that. I can see how he could quite easily raise a defence against it. No idea which way it would go.

It's a bit like selling a car to someone the day before a sale - that's been advertised - starts. The vendor would be under no obligation to tell the buyer given the information is out there. Obviously the buyer could return it and repurchase it within the cooling off period. But not a couple of years later.

Mate, not actually correct.

Some contracts are regarded as being Uberrima fides, that is, the contractual parties have an obligation of utmost good faith. A contract being a principal and agent is likely to be one of these, particularly where the agent is a highly experienced and older sports agent and the principal is a wet behind the ears teenager with limited business experience.

In my view Orr was clearly obligated to tell Haas about the change and his failure to do so has placed him in a position of conflict of interest where he has put his interest in front of his clients.

 

[lynx000]

He's obliged to act in his client's best interests, listed specifically under the NRL's accredited agents scheme rules and (as I understand it) as a legal requirement as an agent (although I don't know if it's under specific legislation or common law and any searches are drowned out in references to corporations law and accounting agents etc). What defence would you see Orr being able to raise showing that advising Payne to sign a long term management deal a day before new NRL rules allowing for players to leave management contracts came into place? Not being snarky here, I'm genuinely unaware of how those actions are consistent with acting in Payne's best interests but I'm neither a lawyer nor particularly competent in legal matters.

You nailed it spot on mate despite the above.

 

[McHunt]

Mate, not actually correct.

Some contracts are regarded as being Uberrima fides, that is, the contractual parties have an obligation of utmost good faith. A contract being a principal and agent is likely to be one of these, particularly where the agent is a highly experienced and older sports agent and the principal is a wet behind the ears teenager with limited business experience.

In my view Orr was clearly obligated to tell Haas about the change and his failure to do so has placed him in a position of conflict of interest where he has put his interest in front of his clients.

Not sure it is, but I presume that's along the lines of what Payne's lawyer is arguing. It can't be as slam dunk as you make out. Otherwise it wouldn't be tied up in court.

Meanwhile, Orr's lawyer could be contesting that he had no such obligation, or better to contend he WAS acting in Payne's best interest by retaining his service. I'm sure he could sell the benefit of retaining an agent. And given that Payne did sign within that period, he is bound by the law pertaining to the date he signed.

Or maybe Orr will insist Payne did know but signed anyway.

Have you heard Orr's side of it? Hard to form an opinion only hearing one side.

 

[lynx000]

Not sure it is, but I presume that's along the lines of what Payne's lawyer is arguing. It can't be as slam dunk as you make out. Otherwise it wouldn't be tied up in court.

Meanwhile, Orr's lawyer could be contesting that he had no such obligation, or better to contend he WAS acting in Payne's best interest by retaining his service. I'm sure he could sell the benefit of retaining an agent. And given that Payne did sign within that period, he is bound by the law pertaining to the date he signed.

Or maybe Orr will insist Payne did know but signed anyway.

Have you heard Orr's side of it? Hard to form an opinion only hearing one side.

My post was predicated upon an assumption that what Haas maintains occurred, has in fact occurred, that is, that he was not told by Orr of the change. It would be a bold strategy to commence a court action if he knew.

Assuming that to be true, in my view he was obligated to inform and his failure to do so places him at risk of the contract being set aside.

The bolded is nonsensical with all due respect.

Orr can assert whatever he wants, but if it is not in writing it is likely that his oral testimony will be open to question. As an experienced agent you would expect (just to cover yourself and to protect your commission) him to have it all in writing that you have explained the change to the client, advised the client to get independent legal advice if they choose to do so and have them sign that in front of witnesses.

Thankfully I don't need to know Orr's side of it because I am not deciding the case.

Once again, my opinion was predicated on ptance of what Haas is alleging being correct.

I will await the judgment and I will read it with great interest.

 

[McHunt]

My post was predicated upon an assumption that what Haas maintains occurred, has in fact occurred, that is, that he was not told by Orr of the change. It would be a bold strategy to commence a court action if he knew.

Assuming that to be true, in my view he was obligated to inform and his failure to do so places him at risk of the contract being set aside.

The bolded is nonsensical with all due respect.

Orr can assert whatever he wants, but if it is not in writing it is likely that his oral testimony will be open to question. As an experienced agent you would expect (just to cover yourself and to protect your commission) him to have it all in writing that you have explained the change to the client, advised the client to get independent legal advice if they choose to do so and have them sign that in front of witnesses.

Thankfully I don't need to know Orr's side of it because I am not deciding the case.

Once again, my opinion was predicated on ptance of what Haas is alleging being correct.

I will await the judgment and I will read it with great interest.

No need for respect. I'm only talking out of my arse. Having had a couple of agents in my time, I just can't imagine any trying to talk me into an option that would be cutting them out of a job.

All I'm saying is that if Orr can sell his services, he can probably construct a pitch that Payne would be better off retaining him as an agent than not having one. In which case the whole argument falls apart. Not saying he's going to win it, but he can argue that.

 

[abashii]

Orr can sell his services, he can probably construct a pitch that Payne would be better off retaining him as an agent than not having one. In which case the whole argument falls apart

Sounds dubious, the rule changes coming into effect would not have precluded Payne from retaining Orr as his agent until the end of time should he wish to do so, they only put a limit on the length of time Orr could continue to manage Payne should Payne no longer find his services satisfactory. So essentially the pitch you're describing is it is in Payne's best interests to be unable to be represented by the agent of his choice. I've known some shit-hot salesmen in my time but that's a few steps beyond selling raincoats in the Sahara.

 

[Locky’s Left Boot]

No wonder Rothfield is such a successful journalist. He bold face lies about something he knows nothing about and every goes into meltdown.

You mean like how he came out on NRL360 and claimed that a couple of the Bulldogs signings have told him that they are unhappy with the clubs attention to detail compared to their former clubs complaining about such things as not having drones oversee their training sessions to get feedback?
Only for Gus Gould to call him out on Twitter with concrete evidence (something journalists seem to not require before making outlandish statements) of drones actually being used to film their training sessions this pre season.

And then when he gets called out on it on the following weeks show, he hides being the guise of “sorry my mail was wrong”

So either players/agents he talks to lie directly to his face or he just makes stuff up. Has to be one or the other.

 

[Locky’s Left Boot]

 

[theshed]

View attachment 17529

McHunt in crisis

 

[BroncsFan]

View attachment 17529

Hmmmm.... all of them... I'd go with all of them.

Lock it in Eddy!!

 

[Sproj]

View attachment 17529

Just one?

 

[Scorchie]

I don’t get it

If the dispute was the Haas was locked into a mgmt contract longer than he needed to, surely the finding is that the mgmt fees are null void after the end of year two and he’s free to find new representation.

Bit different to the James Roberts situation at the Titans