Essendon sign Mal Michael

[Lance Uppercut]

Lance Uppercut

Essendon were not too stupid to take advantage of an amnesty.

They and Carlton were too arrogant in thinking they would never be caught. The distinction is crucial.

Stupid, arrogant, whatever way you want to say it. The inherent point is that all clubs rorted the system, not just Essendon and Carlton

 

[Shads]

Re: Essendon sign Mal Michaels

The funny thing is if it were the Bulldogs or West Coast or Sydney, people would be saying what a great pick-up and how clever they were but because its Essendon Mal Michael is now a DUD and they're cheats.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[still chasing amy]

If it bleeds you can kill it
If it retires you can draft it

 

[*Danni*]

If it bleeds you can kill it
If it retires you can draft it

And if it breaks it leg you patch it up and flog it till it can't walk no more.

Seriously we've heard it all before, there is more to all this than the final outcome. The reasoning behind the exodus concerns me.

 

[borgy]

mal to the dons, it wont happen, the afl have to do something about this or the lions are going to be furious.

 

[Smokin]

Yes they do, governed by the law/legislation.


I would expect the AFL to act on this, if they don't, then the foundations of trading, delistings and retirements under AFL rules and the CBA are all invalid. There will be a way they can address this. Just because they have failed to do so until now doesn't make it right. It might make it allowable, but it doesn't make it right.

Like it or not - and mostly not on my part - my club seem to get their names in the papers for alot of 'firsts'. And this situation is not that far removed from the intravenous drip issue of a few years ago. It was breaking any laws. It wasn't contravening any 'can't do' legislation by the AFL. It was deemed to be 'not in the spirit', and I expect this issue to follow the same suit. Except of course in this case my club is not the instigator, more the reactor to the lack of legislation by the AFL.

What on earth do you propose the AFL to do? The whole issue is covered by contract law. It's not a lophole, not a precedent nor is it anything special.

Fact is, Brisbane played hardball with MM, effectively forced him away from your club when he was still WILLING and ABLE to play (all done in good faith, up front and honest), then he turns the tables on the club he now despises, and now Brisbane are angels and he is a dog?

Brisbane, you made your bed. Now lie in it.

 

[Smokin]

mal to the dons, it wont happen, the afl have to do something about this or the lions are going to be furious.

just like they were going to do this, that and the other to Akers career.

All bark no bite.

They have no legal leg to stand on. The #$@#ed up royally!!!

 

[jules101]

Re: Essendon sign Mal Michaels

Then play both in the goal square. Michael on the bigger body and Fletch on the small. Fletch can play on anyone.

This might release Fletch to set up more of the play with raking long passes out from defence.

yeah easy the forwards take turns in playing out of the square.

 

[Black Panther]

Brisbane have no leg to stand on, it's their OWN fault, nobody else to blame but THEMSELVES

Mr. Bowers making lots of noise to try and deflect from his own incompetence

The Lions then agreed to terminate his contract but the Bombers maintained on Friday they have done nothing wrong in signing Michael because Brisbane did not insert a clause in Michael's official release preventing him from playing for another club.

"If the deed of release which was negotiated didn’t look after the club's best interests then that is not my problem," Essendon chief executive Peter Jackson said.

Jackson said that he also checked with AFL investigator Ken Wood as to whether the Bombers could secure Michael and had been given the go-ahead.

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=307559

 

[JLC]

Brisbane have no leg to stand on, it's their OWN fault, nobody else to blame but THEMSELVES

Mr. Bowers making lots of noise to try and deflect from his own incompetence





http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=307559

Brisbane acted in good faith. I still think they will have a strong case if they took it to court.

Surely common sense would say a "reasonable person" would deem retirement to be longer than a couple of weeks. Would a reasonable person have allowed him to retire if they thought he was going to come bacK?

I dont know the lawthat well but hopefully common sense prevails.

jlc

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Brisbane acted in good faith. I still think they will have a strong case if they took it to court.

Surely common sense would say a "reasonable person" would deem retirement to be longer than a couple of weeks. Would a reasonable person have allowed him to retire if they thought he was going to come bacK?

I dont know the lawthat well but hopefully common sense prevails.

jlc

is it illegal to change your mind now? Can a club stop a player from retiring can they?

Because that's what it comes down to, sans collusion. It's just that simple.

 

[richmondgal]

Seriously, is Mal gonna do better at Essendon than he was at Brisbane? Not if you wanted to retire you don't. And then come out of retirement but all you get is a barge of crap for jumping ship when you weren't suppose to.

 

[jcraw1]

Brisbane acted in good faith. I still think they will have a strong case if they took it to court.

Surely common sense would say a "reasonable person" would deem retirement to be longer than a couple of weeks. Would a reasonable person have allowed him to retire if they thought he was going to come bacK?

I dont know the lawthat well but hopefully common sense prevails.

jlc

If that's the case why bother having contracts at all? Let everyone play on good faith. It is professional sports, and each team have legal advisors to cover their arses.. If they didn't take care of something as basic as this, then they have nothing to cry about.

Not adding a clause to a contract which comes back to bite you in the behind and then claiming "good faith" will not stand up in court.

"A contract is any legally-enforceable promise or set of promises made by one party to another and, as such, reflects the policies represented by freedom of contract. In the civil law, contracts are considered to be part of the general law of obligations. This article describes the law relating to contracts in common law jurisdictions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

 

[jules101]

If that's the case why bother having contracts at all? Let everyone play on good faith. It is professional sports, and each team have legal advisors to cover their arses.. If they didn't take care of something as basic as this, then they have nothing to cry about.

Not adding a clause to a contract which comes back to bite you in the behind and then claiming "good faith" will not stand up in court.

"A contract is any legally-enforceable promise or set of promises made by one party to another and, as such, reflects the policies represented by freedom of contract. In the civil law, contracts are considered to be part of the general law of obligations. This article describes the law relating to contracts in common law jurisdictions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

Doubt the wikipedia definition will be used in a courtroom.

 

[OB1]

This reminds me of when Tim Watson 1st retired. West Coast actually drafted him the next year just on the off chance he might play. Of course he never went there but made a comeback the next year.

I certainly can't blame Brissy for being completely peeved off by the situation but if the decission was purely Mals then are they going to sue him? By the sounds of it if he hadn't retired he may have ended up in the PSD anyway. The relationships between some players & the club seems to have really gone bad.

 

[jcraw1]

Doubt the wikipedia definition will be used in a courtroom.

Define contract in your own words then, and the outcome is the same.

It's a legal document outlining a set of agreements which are binding by law. The agreements restrict what the parties cannot do, and dictate what they can.

The contract between Mal Michael and Brisbane for the retirement of Michael did NOT stipulate that he could not register his services for another team should he have a change of heart, so there is no legal ground for them to claim breach of contract.

Is it moral? That's for each person to decide for themselves, and conclusions are going to be clouded depending on what team people support, but the bottom line is Michael acted within the scope of his contract and was free to do whatever he wanted.

Essendon cleared it with the AFL before announcing anything and they gave the green light, so I guess the AFL agrees that there was no breach either.

I compare this to a team having an option on a player's contract, and they forget to pick up that option, then the player signs with another team. Is that the players fault or the teams? I dont think options exist in AFL contracts, but they do in other sports and sometimes things like that happens

Anthony Carter failed to notify that he was picking up the $4.4 million option on his contract with the Miami Heat, and was then declared a free agent. It was a major f'up on his agents behalf, since Carter was not worth anywhere near this amount, and he was lucky to pick up a minimum contract with another team.

The Heat, however, used that cap space to sign Lamar Odom, who 12 months later was traded for Shaquille O'Neal, who ultimately helped them win their first ever championship.

Did the Heat cheat? No, it was the player's stuff up, just like this this instance it is Brisbane's stuff up by not covering their behinds.

 

[M29]

Hope mal dosen't do a Thorpey with us. At least with him we won't be looking at one of the cloke duds.

 

[raskolnikov]

Re: Essendon sign Mal Michaels

what a load of rubbish, shouldnt be allowed to do that.

money can be exchanged for goods and services

 

[The Pies Are In Front]

Re: Essendon sign Mal Michaels

What a number he has pulled on the Lions!

 

[1jasonoz]

start then.

Promissary Estoppel

Go to Google then come back a contract law expert!

 

[AngelEyes]

Define contract in your own words then, and the outcome is the same.

It's a legal document outlining a set of agreements which are binding by law. The agreements restrict what the parties cannot do, and dictate what they can.

The contract between Mal Michael and Brisbane for the retirement of Michael did NOT stipulate that he could not register his services for another team should he have a change of heart, so there is no legal ground for them to claim breach of contract.

Is it moral? That's for each person to decide for themselves, and conclusions are going to be clouded depending on what team people support, but the bottom line is Michael acted within the scope of his contract and was free to do whatever he wanted.

Essendon cleared it with the AFL before announcing anything and they gave the green light, so I guess the AFL agrees that there was no breach either.

I compare this to a team having an option on a player's contract, and they forget to pick up that option, then the player signs with another team. Is that the players fault or the teams? I dont think options exist in AFL contracts, but they do in other sports and sometimes things like that happens

Anthony Carter failed to notify that he was picking up the $4.4 million option on his contract with the Miami Heat, and was then declared a free agent. It was a major f'up on his agents behalf, since Carter was not worth anywhere near this amount, and he was lucky to pick up a minimum contract with another team.

The Heat, however, used that cap space to sign Lamar Odom, who 12 months later was traded for Shaquille O'Neal, who ultimately helped them win their first ever championship.

Did the Heat cheat? No, it was the player's stuff up, just like this this instance it is Brisbane's stuff up by not covering their behinds.

1. The NBA comparison has no relevance.

2. A contract doesn't have to be written. Contracts are alot more complex than that. They can be verbal or rely on parts of both verbal and written agreements. I would suggest their was a verbal undertaking that Michael would retire.

 

[jcraw1]

1. The NBA comparison has no relevance.

2. A contract doesn't have to be written. Contracts are alot more complex than that. They can be verbal or rely on parts of both verbal and written agreements. I would suggest their was a verbal undertaking that Michael would retire.

The onus is on Brisbane to prove that a verbal contract existed. Since a written contract IS part of this package, then it is safe to presume that if Brisbane wanted to protect their asset, or even if they considered him an asset worth holding onto, they would have entered this basic little clause into the written contract. Whether by design or or error they did not, and they cannot just cry foul and claim verbal contract over their own error.

The NBA example does have relevance since it shows the flipside where the player stuffed up, not the team. Should the player just claim that they had an understanding, since he had the option and he was not worth that money, that he'll certainly be picking up the option? No, they went by what was written in the contract and that was binding. Both the team and the player believed the option would be picked up because there was no way he was going to get a better deal anywhere else, but the written contract wasn't followed and one of the parties got burnt.

Brisbane could have avoided all this with a little bit of, well I wouldnt even call it smarts.. A bit of sensability could have avoided all this, and I'm not buying all this verbal contract mumbo jumbo you're claiming, although I do see what you're trying to say. The fact remains though that Brisbane failed to efficiently cover their behinds by taking care of matters, and they lost out. They played russian roulette and copped the bullet.

 

[AngelEyes]

The onus is on Brisbane to prove that a verbal contract existed. Since a written contract IS part of this package, then it is safe to presume that if Brisbane wanted to protect their asset, or even if they considered him an asset worth holding onto, they would have entered this basic little clause into the written contract. Whether by design or or error they did not, and they cannot just cry foul and claim verbal contract over their own error.

The NBA example does have relevance since it shows the flipside where the player stuffed up, not the team. Should the player just claim that they had an understanding, since he had the option and he was not worth that money, that he'll certainly be picking up the option? No, they went by what was written in the contract and that was binding. Both the team and the player believed the option would be picked up because there was no way he was going to get a better deal anywhere else, but the written contract wasn't followed and one of the parties got burnt.

Brisbane could have avoided all this with a little bit of, well I wouldnt even call it smarts.. A bit of sensability could have avoided all this, and I'm not buying all this verbal contract mumbo jumbo you're claiming, although I do see what you're trying to say. The fact remains though that Brisbane failed to efficiently cover their behinds by taking care of matters, and they lost out. They played russian roulette and copped the bullet.

Or Brisbane could have trusted the player that he would retire? Its simplistic to say that everything in a contract is written. It was understood that he would retire. Therefore, it is in essence a condition of the contract. There isn't an error as it is conclusive enough to suggest that Michael retiring verbally is part of the contract. It is clear there was at least an understanding that if Brisbane released Michael he would retire.

You can dismiss the verbal part but verbal parts of contracts are part of contracts in situtations like this. I agree that a written clause would solve all this but the player trusted the club. All players I have no doubt from now on will have clauses like that.

In the NBA example: the player didn't accept the contract to the team. That is completely different. That case is about failure to accept a contract and the offer lapsing. I don't see what relevance that has to this case in any abstract way.

 

[jcraw1]

Or Brisbane could have trusted the player that he would retire? Its simplistic to say that everything in a contract is written. It was understood that he would retire. Therefore, it is in essence a condition of the contract. There isn't an error as it is conclusive enough to suggest that Michael retiring verbally is part of the contract. It is clear there was at least an understanding that if Brisbane released Michael he would retire.

You can dismiss the verbal part but verbal parts of contracts are part of contracts in situtations like this. I agree that a written clause would solve all this but the player trusted the club. All players I have no doubt from now on will have clauses like that.

In the NBA example: the player didn't accept the contract to the team. That is completely different. That case is about failure to accept a contract and the offer lapsing. I don't see what relevance that has to this case in any abstract way.

He did retire. He then had a change of heart. The conditions of the severence were met. That, my friend, is the bottom line and what would be looked at if it went to court.

How many players have ever come out of retirement in any sport in the world? Lots.

If Brisbane were concerned the precidents were already out there and they could EASILY have protected themselves. They chose not to, Michael changed his mind and the AFL approved it when Essendon inquired as to whether signing him was possible.

 

[AngelEyes]

He did retire. He then had a change of heart. The conditions of the severence were met. That, my friend, is the bottom line and what would be looked at if it went to court.

How many players have ever come out of retirement in any sport in the world? Lots.

If Brisbane were concerned the precidents were already out there and they could EASILY have protected themselves. They chose not to, Michael changed his mind and the AFL approved it when Essendon inquired as to whether signing him was possible.

The distinction is that players normally either wait a year before unretiring and/or wouldn't have been under contract when they came back. That, my friend, is the distinction that would be looked at if it went to court. For all intents and purposes he hasn't really retired. I'm very sure a court would find that a verbal condition would be that he actually retired. He hasn't physically retired.

I doubt the AFL has made their final decision and the AFL decision isn't a proper court decision.