Essendon sign Mal Michael

[jcraw1]

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.

As I said a number of times, Brisbane were sloppy in their execution. If they didn't want him to come out of retirement and play for another team within 12 months, then put it into the severance contract. It's a standard clause across most industries, and one which I'm sure the courts would look at. It's hardly a loophole, it's incompetence on Brisbane's behalf.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Well, well, well ... Sheedy's Shonkies are at it again. No wonder people call them EssenSCUM.

 

[AngelEyes]

As I said a number of times, Brisbane were sloppy in their execution. If they didn't want him to come out of retirement and play for another team within 12 months, then put it into the severance contract. It's a standard clause across most industries, and one which I'm sure the courts would look at. It's hardly a loophole, it's incompetence on Brisbane's behalf.

A standard clause on contracts? I'm sure that you don't know what is standard and whats not.

If anything I'd suggest that its the exception to put something like that in a contract. If anything I'd suggest that Michael's retirement contract was a standard one.

The courts would obviously look at it but would give just as much weight to the public comments regarding retirement and Brisbane releasing him only so he could retire. If Michael requested that clause be missing then he would probably home and hosed but I doubt Brisbane would have agreed to leave it out if Michael requested it. It would illogical to do so.

 

[Black Panther]

A standard clause on contracts? I'm sure that you don't know what is standard and whats not.

If anything I'd suggest that its the exception to put something like that in a contract. If anything I'd suggest that Michael's retirement contract was a standard one.

The courts would obviously look at it but would give just as much weight to the public comments regarding retirement and Brisbane releasing him only so he could retire. If Michael requested that clause be missing then he would probably home and hosed but I doubt Brisbane would have agreed to leave it out if Michael requested it. It would illogical to do so.

Port Adelaide put the same clause in Stuart Dew's retirement contract according to Peter Rohde on the news tonight, that he couldn't play for another club next season if he changed his mind.

Brisbane & Bowers stuffed up majorly, is as simple as that

 

[ClayBlue87]

Just as Essendon were allowed to move Rama to the Rookie list on compasionate grounds. How quaint. They get a rule change for them from the compassion of the AFL and clubs and then go and find loop-holes to the misfortune of Brisbane.

Just as Rama was rookied on the spirit of the game.
Just as Freo was award the win at siren gate on the spirit of the game.
Michael will not be allowed as it has defied the spirit of the game and should have ethically gone through the trading period.

 

[AngelEyes]

The thing is I think Essendon want to be sued so they can get rid of the trade period, draft and salary cap. The AFL won't rush and will play its game very carefully.

 

[jcraw1]

A standard clause on contracts? I'm sure that you don't know what is standard and whats not.

My jobs involve contracts and I've seen it come up quite a few times (cannot sign with competitors through the duration of the contract, etc.). It's quite standard, and nothing to be alarmed about when it is seen. Think about it from a logical standpoint for two seconds and you'll realise that the contract is a set of guidelines which dictates what each party can and can not do. Brisbane did not restrict what Michael could do post-severence, so he's free to do whatever he wants.

 

[jcraw1]

The thing is I think Essendon want to be sued so they can get rid of the trade period, draft and salary cap. The AFL won't rush and will play its game very carefully.

LOL!

Is this all based on your circumstantial evidence where nothing has to be proven as well?

 

[AngelEyes]

My jobs involve contracts and I've seen it come up quite a few times (cannot sign with competitors through the duration of the contract, etc.). It's quite standard, and nothing to be alarmed about when it is seen. Think about it from a logical standpoint for two seconds and you'll realise that the contract is a set of guidelines which dictates what each party can and can not do. Brisbane did not restrict what Michael could do post-severence, so he's free to do whatever he wants.

So you work for multiple AFL clubs?

I understand that a contract is an agreement betwene two parties regarding what they can and can't do. If you work in the contract area you will also understand what happens with verbal promises in contracts etc and their validity.

 

[AngelEyes]

LOL!

Is this all based on your circumstantial evidence where nothing has to be proven as well?

I never said nothing has to be proven. I simply noted that just because MM/Ess say something doesn't mean its true.

 

[jcraw1]

So you work for multiple AFL clubs?

I understand that a contract is an agreement betwene two parties regarding what they can and can't do. If you work in the contract area you will also understand what happens with verbal promises in contracts etc and their validity.

Not for the AFL, but for another sport, and resolutions are always based on the written contract, not heresay, assumptions or verbalization as you're trying to push. The ideas of a contract is to make things clear, not to leave things open for interpretation or ambiguous.

 

[footy4eva]

Word from SEN that the Bombers have signed Mal Michaels on a 2 year deal.

how the f can this happen
draft day is tomorrow
trade period is over!!!
no one can sign contracts that are valid this way

who and what do the bombers think they are

what a load of pig sh it

 

[AngelEyes]

Not for the AFL, but for another sport, and resolutions are always based on the written contract, not heresay, assumptions or verbalization as you're trying to push. The ideas of a contract is to make things clear, not to leave things open for interpretation or ambiguous.

So you don't know AFL contracts?

What about customs implied in contracts as per Con-Stan Industries v Norwich Winterhur? Could Brisbane argue along those lines that "everyone making a contract in that situtation can reasonably be presumed to have imported that term into the contract"? Is it a custom that when a player releases a player to retire that he retires?

 

[jcraw1]

how the f can this happen
draft day is tomorrow
trade period is over!!!
no one can sign contracts that are valid this way

who and what do the bombers think they are

what a load of pig sh it

Pick #2, PSD.. He hasn't actually signed a contract. Tune in mate.

 

[jcraw1]

So you don't know AFL contracts?

What about customs implied in contracts as per Con-Stan Industries v Norwich Winterhur? Could Brisbane argue along those lines that "everyone making a contract in that situtation can reasonably be presumed to have imported that term into the contract"? Is it a custom that when a player releases a player to retire that he retires?

So you know contracts then? I'm not a lawyer, and I dont work for the AFL or any of it's teams. Everything I've posted here is my opinion only. I seriously cannot see how clauses which were NEVER inserted into a contract can be held up as the contract breach.. Yeah yeah, you're claiming verbal, but if that worked than every time a written contract never transpires the way you intended you could play that card, which defeats the purpose of having the written contract.

There are no legal grounds for assumptions, which is the whole basis of your argument for Brisbane. They plain f'd up.

 

[Corpuscles]

So you know contracts then? I'm not a lawyer, and I dont work for the AFL or any of it's teams. Everything I've posted here is my opinion only. I seriously cannot see how clauses which were NEVER inserted into a contract can be held up as the contract breach.. Yeah yeah, you're claiming verbal, but if that worked than every time a written contract never transpires the way you intended you could play that card, which defeats the purpose of having the written contract.

There are no legal grounds for assumptions, which is the whole basis of your argument for Brisbane. They plain f'd up.

Reconsider! You certainly make no sense whatsoever... No1 absolute requirement for a lawyer.

The dill V versus V... have a beer .....and compemplate landscape design!

 

[jcraw1]

Reconsider! You certainly make no sense whatsoever... No1 absolute requirement for a lawyer.

The dill V versus V... have a beer .....and compemplate landscape design!

So you're saying that I can assume that a have an agreement with another party, yet dont bother putting it into the contract, and then when that assumption doesn't pan out I have a legal right to sue for breach of contract with something that was never in that legal document?

Yeah, okay. Moron.

 

[Underdog]

So you're saying that I can assume that a have an agreement with another party, yet dont bother putting it into the contract, and then when that assumption doesn't pan out I have a legal right to sue for breach of contract with something that was never in that legal document?

Yeah, okay. Moron.

But the contract was voided because Mal retired. That was clear. There is no assumption being made.

The other club has nothing to do with it. As soon as he comes out of retirement, he is in breach of the agreement

 

[jcraw1]

But the contract was voided because Mal retired. That was clear. There is no assumption being made.

The other club has nothing to do with it. As soon as he comes out of retirement, he is in breach of the agreement

That's open for intepretation, and it is precisely where the arguments come in. He DID retire. The papers were filed. The severence contract was drawn up and signed off. The severence contract, as admitted by both Mal Michael and the AFL, did not stipulate how long he had to stay retired, or how long he would have to wait until he was free to join another club, if he so chose.

He chose to come out of retirement sooner than anyone would have anticipated, but legally he was retired as the papers were filed.

We're talking legal, not moral.

 

[Underdog]

then it depends on the definition of retired. the most common definition would be that retirement hasnt begun until a new season starts where you are no longer affiliated with a club

 

[AngelEyes]

A contract is an agreement. We all agree Michael was orginally contracted for 2007. How do you end a contract? Another agreement (or contract) to end the old contract? It could be said there are two contracts.

The second could have as mentioned in the abovementioned case that a condition is Michael retire for the 2007 season. If he comes out of retirement before the end of 2007 it could be argued he breached contract.

For retirement, I would use what I said before either not be affiliated with any club for a season and/or you would not be contracted under any old contract (if it still existed).

 

[Snuka]

We should of asked the AFL if we can put him on as a mature age rookie just in case he decided to come back.

 

[jcraw1]

then it depends on the definition of retired. the most common definition would be that retirement hasnt begun until a new season starts where you are no longer affiliated with a club

I guess that is the point Brisbane is going to argue, but in the sport I work for once the papers have been filed, the player is determined to be retired.

 

[jcraw1]

A contract is an agreement. We all agree Michael was orginally contracted for 2007. How do you end a contract? Another agreement (or contract) to end the old contract? It could be said there are two contracts.

The second could have as mentioned in the abovementioned case that a condition is Michael retire for the 2007 season. If he comes out of retirement before the end of 2007 it could be argued he breached contract.

For retirement, I would use what I said before either not be affiliated with any club for a season and/or you would not be contracted under any old contract (if it still existed).

The old contract was nixed. That's been written in the media.

The AFL also signed off on the deal, according to Peter Jackson when he inquired, which to me says that it is all fair and above board.

Brisbane can argue if they want, but as I have said dozens of times they could have easily protected themselves. Usually the severence makes the other contract null and void, but if Brisbane plan on taking this further they'll have experts looking over the wording very closely over the coming few days.

 

[AngelEyes]

I guess that is the point Brisbane is going to argue, but in the sport I work for once the papers have been filed, the player is determined to be retired.

I think your right that the definition of retirement will be the crucial decider in this case. Essendon will argue what you just said, Brisbane will argue that is not retirement. I guess we'll all just have to wait and see as we are all just merely speculating.

There are probably another couple of avenues Brisbane could argue too and I'm sure they will find them as they could afford alot better people than us on here!