Essendon sign Mal Michael

Remove this Banner Ad

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

They mutally agreed to terminate his 2007 contract, no rider or special condition was put on the fact that he had to stay retired. Since he has in fact been lodged as a retirement/delisted player with the AFL he is by law free to do what he likes,

it may stink a little but it is in no way in breach of any AFL guideline.
 
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! :p

Exactly right mate.. If it goes to court, I guess it'll come down to the judge's decision of what "retirement" means, and if the AFL has any bi-laws on the subject. If they dont, I wonder if they will soon.

It's going to be an interesting time leading up to the preseason draft. I wonder what will happen if legal proceedings are unresolved when the draft hits? If it is still unresolved and Essendon draft Michael with the league's approval, which they have got, what will happen?
 
They mutally agreed to terminate his 2007 contract, no rider or special condition was put on the fact that he had to stay retired. Since he has in fact been lodged as a retirement/delisted player with the AFL he is by law free to do what he likes,

it may stink a little but it is in no way in breach of any AFL guideline.
The AFL isn't law. These issues are far more than just AFL issues - they enter the reaches of court and contract law.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

They mutally agreed to terminate his 2007 contract, no rider or special condition was put on the fact that he had to stay retired. Since he has in fact been lodged as a retirement/delisted player with the AFL he is by law free to do what he likes,

it may stink a little but it is in no way in breach of any AFL guideline.

That's pretty much what I've been trying to say all night... I'm not arguing the moral side of it at all since there is little defense for such, but from a contractual standpoint I don't think there is anything out of line.

We'll find out in due time though I guess.
 
Exactly right mate.. If it goes to court, I guess it'll come down to the judge's decision of what "retirement" means, and if the AFL has any bi-laws on the subject. If they dont, I wonder if they will soon.

It's going to be an interesting time leading up to the preseason draft. I wonder what will happen if legal proceedings are unresolved when the draft hits? If it is still unresolved and Essendon draft Michael with the league's approval, which they have got, what will happen?
I personally believe there might be a settlement e.g. Essendon give Brisbane a $100k or something to shut up and Brisbane leave it alone.

I think its a crap situation and I agree that Brisbane should have put the clause in but I suppose things like this are what makes life interesting!
 
The AFL isn't law. These issues are far more than just AFL issues - they enter the reaches of court and contract law.

There is no contract.

they mutually ended the current contract with no pay out i might add. He ceases to be a Brisbane Lion once he is listed as a delisted/retired player with the AFL.
 
There is no contract.

they mutually ended the current contract with no pay out i might add. He ceases to be a Brisbane Lion once he is listed as a delisted/retired player with the AFL.
How do you end a contract? Do you form another contract that agrees the old one is void?

Yes I agree his playing contract is void. However, there is an agreement to cancel that playing contract. Following the discussion regarding customs implied in contract as per Con-Stan Industries v Norwich Winterthur. Can we follow "everyone making a contract in that situtation can reasonably be presumed to have imported that term in to the contract"? Is reasonable to apply this to the contract cancelling the old contract i.e. can we say in such a contract it is implied that the player "retire"?
 
I personally believe there might be a settlement e.g. Essendon give Brisbane a $100k or something to shut up and Brisbane leave it alone.

I think its a crap situation and I agree that Brisbane should have put the clause in but I suppose things like this are what makes life interesting!


Who do you think we are - the AFL? You'll get no handouts from us.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

How do you end a contract? Do you form another contract that agrees the old one is void?

Yes I agree his playing contract is void. However, there is an agreement to cancel that playing contract. Following the discussion regarding customs implied in contract as per Con-Stan Industries v Norwich Winterthur. Can we follow "everyone making a contract in that situtation can reasonably be presumed to have imported that term in to the contract"? Is reasonable to apply this to the contract cancelling the old contract i.e. can we say in such a contract it is implied that the player "retire"?


If they had a rock solid legal recourse they wouldnt be asking the afl to investigate. It seems to me the lions have been caught short and are clutching at any means left to get some compensation.
 
If they had a rock solid legal recourse they wouldnt be asking the afl to investigate. It seems to me the lions have been caught short and are clutching at any means left to get some compensation.
I challenge anyone put in this particular situation to do otherwise. Let's not kid ourselves here - the other 15 clubs would be doing the exact same thing.
 
If they had a rock solid legal recourse they wouldnt be asking the afl to investigate. It seems to me the lions have been caught short and are clutching at any means left to get some compensation.
Why is that invalid then?

Or is it cheaper and more practical to appeal to the AFL first? What would you do? Or would you just rush in and blow $100s of thousands on legal bills before you had to? I think everyone would rather handle it internally than go to Court.

The Lions have some time before the PSD is on so I wouldn't rule it out.
 
I challenge anyone put in this particular situation to do otherwise. Let's not kid ourselves here - the other 15 clubs would be doing the exact same thing.

Of course they would, if the shoe was on the other foot i would be pissed off.

Conversly would any of the other clubs have done the same as essendon if they thought Michael was available?
 
I challenge anyone put in this particular situation to do otherwise. Let's not kid ourselves here - the other 15 clubs would be doing the exact same thing.

I certainly don't blame Brissy for exploring all options & fully understand their annoyance at the situation. Oh well hopefully all other clubs can at least learn from this & give themselves some protection when terminating contracts.
 
Why is that invalid then?

Or is it cheaper and more practical to appeal to the AFL first? What would you do? Or would you just rush in and blow $100s of thousands on legal bills before you had to? I think everyone would rather handle it internally than go to Court.

The Lions have some time before the PSD is on so I wouldn't rule it out.

If they had a clear legal agreement to enforce surely they would have already made it clear.

The simple fact is the player has no ties anymore to the lions and is free to do what he wishes in terms of going to another club.
 
There is no contract.

they mutually ended the current contract with no pay out i might add. He ceases to be a Brisbane Lion once he is listed as a delisted/retired player with the AFL.


Of course there was no payout because Big Mal did not honour the final year of his contract. He left of his own will and no payout would occur unless he had backended issues.
Blind Freddy can see the "retirement" was just a ruse. The Lions likely to claim misleading and deceitful conduct.
Average way to repay a club that has givien you the opportunities to play in three flags.
 
If they had a clear legal agreement to enforce surely they would have already made it clear.

The simple fact is the player has no ties anymore to the lions and is free to do what he wishes in terms of going to another club.
Why don't people comment when there is legal proceedings on? Seeing they probably only just found out also it take takes time to take action. They have inciated action within the AFL and I'm sure that legal action will follow.

Did you read what the case that I mentioned said? Its not as clean cut as you say and if you read the ramifications of that case surely you must understand that it may have some implications in this matter?
 
Blind Freddy can see the "retirement" was just a ruse. The Lions likely to claim misleading and deceitful conduct.
Average way to repay a club that has givien you the opportunities to play in three flags.

The hard thing is proving collusion between the involved parties. Its hard to make tough decisions based on assumptions.
 
The hard thing is proving collusion between the involved parties. Its hard to make tough decisions based on assumptions.
Why do they need collusion? If Mal broke contract as per the implied custom abovementioned he broke contract.

And if Essendon enticed him to break that implied custom I don't see how collusion needs to be proven.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Essendon sign Mal Michael

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top