Essendon needs to pre-empt this "ASADA clause"

Sick of seeing these articles of X, Y & Z player is leaving.

 

if this clause exists and it can be used, why hasn't the club preemptively tried to go to the AFL (yes I know they're corrupt dickless pigs) and test this clause?

If what Peter Gordan has said is true and that its unlikely that it would be proven, why hasn't the club gone to the AFL and said "is this possible?".

 

I just think the fans/club & players would be in a much better position to nip this "clause" in the bud now and be able to try and curb the media trying to tout this "Mass Exodus Version 2.0" crap.

The club hasn't? Or it hasn't been reported?

It’s definitely getting on my nerves, that’s for sure.

Tim has hinted that it might not be legal

So who knows maybe the next step would be a legal challenge - after Middleton J has handed down his judgement

I assume that you would have to actually prove that the bombers actually DID fail in their duty of care to the player. and its probably going to ride on the outcome of the ASADA case. in the meantime, they better have some really deep dirt on EFC to use that clause.

Whats did Gordan say?

It’s all bollocks. There is a grievance process in the CBA that is similar to all grievance clauses in all commercial contracts.

Player can raise a grievance (ie failure to meet contractual obligations regarding OH/S) and the club needs to rectify the grievance within a set period. If the club fails to act the player can terminate their contract.

Change to the clause is that the player becomes a free agent rather than going into the draft. It does mean that they’d have to sit out until the next FA period though.

Shouldn’t this be in the Saga forum?

Why is this even being discussed when it has been done to death in the Ryder thread and the saga thread?

Why is this even being discussed when it has been done to death in the Ryder thread and the saga thread?


Apologies if you have already covered this IT but I'm wondering why you are so adamant that the "clause" won't stand up in court.
I've noticed you mention it several times and I know you often have the good oil, but I haven't seen you explain why.

 

Why is this even being discussed when it has been done to death in the Ryder thread and the saga thread?


Apologies if you have already covered this IT but I'm wondering why you are so adamant that the "clause" won't stand up in court.
I've noticed you mention it several times and I know you often have the good oil, but I haven't seen you explain why.

 

In the Ryder thread I and others explained how it will not be used.

 

Oh and I do not have the good oil at all, just common sense.  Fogdog and others are the ones with the good oil.


 

 

 

I will say it again, the clause is not going to be used, cannot be used, will never be used and Paddy still has a two year contract that he cannot get out of.

How are you so confident the clause won't be invoked?
Ryder signed a contract in 2012
Get out clause only instituted this year from AFLPA and will not be allowed to be retrospectively used
AFL will not approve it
Essendon would immediately seek an injunction if any attempt was made to use the clause
Paddy would become the most hated player from his former team-mates for selling out the club, plus I cannot imagine he is like that
Paddy has shown over the past two years that he has loved the club so claiming get out clause would fail in court due to this, he incriminates himself. You cannot claim distress when you have spent two years supporting the club in a public way.
Again the AFL would not approve it under this circumstance because it would have to be retrospectively used and it would open a massive floodgate of claims from people seeking to move for higher offers from rival clubs.

Not to mention that the contract didn't begin until 2013 (after the supplements program) so even if he could terminate for breach of DoC, this can only extend back to 2013

^ Thanks for that.

Reporting now that the AFL has no say in the issue and that it’s ruled on by an independent court. (About time they removed themselves)

I felt more confident before I read your rational.

At some point the club would probably want to get back to the business of running the club, rather than jumping on the latest faux legal issue.

The club should be kicking up a stink (privately to the AFL) about other clubs approaching and offering contracts to our contracted players.

The club should be kicking up a stink (privately to the AFL) about other clubs approaching and offering contracts to our contracted players.

Perhaps why other clubs are trying to get our players to use this clause is because they have the tacit approval of the AFL to do so - why do you think the AFL has stayed so silent this last week on this topic?

 

It's the AFL way of getting back at us for re-employing Hird as coach, that's all.

 

We just need to talk quietly and hit those clubs' key players as they emerge out of contract.

Ask a mob of lawyers the same question and you will get very different answers, and if it a matter gets to Court then a Judge may give another outcome.

 

However my Lawyer who is a Contract Law Specialist says that "duty of care' in an employer/employee matter is always after a loss or injury, physical and/or emotional. Unless there is evidence that the employers poor work practices or neglect has caused loss or injury then there is no case to answer.

 

He further went on to say that if an employment contract exists, new clauses cannot be added without consent of both parties.  He has dealt with the AFL and rounded off the discussion by saying that as the AFL could be viewed as the employer as the contract is an AFL contract then perhaps they may have to show that their duty of care has not been breached.

Ask a mob of lawyers the same question and you will get very different answers, and if it a matter gets to Court then a Judge may give another outcome.

 

However my Lawyer who is a Contract Law Specialist says that "duty of care' in an employer/employee matter is always after a loss or injury, physical and/or emotional. Unless there is evidence that the employers poor work practices or neglect has caused loss or injury then there is no case to answer.

 

He further went on to say that if an employment contract exists, new clauses cannot be added without consent of both parties.  He has dealt with the AFL and rounded off the discussion by saying that as the AFL could be viewed as the employer as the contract is an AFL contract then perhaps they may have to show that their duty of care has not been breached.

 

Lawyers are taught to be prepared  to defend the guilty and prosecute the innocent.  Its actually a function of who employs them,  not who is guilty or innocent,  that is for the jury/judge to decide.   Even when effectively conceding defeat they argue  the best deal for their client..

 

Lawyers are whores,  argumentative whores ,  which is worse,  actually.

 

The proper description for a lawyer is "advocate",  that is until  he achieves the position of Judge.  These are the people who rise above advocacy and defend the law .

 

What is the law?  The evolved expression of the accumulated ethos of the society in which it operates.

Ask a mob of lawyers the same question and you will get very different answers, and if it a matter gets to Court then a Judge may give another outcome.

 

However my Lawyer who is a Contract Law Specialist says that "duty of care' in an employer/employee matter is always after a loss or injury, physical and/or emotional. Unless there is evidence that the employers poor work practices or neglect has caused loss or injury then there is no case to answer.

 

He further went on to say that if an employment contract exists, new clauses cannot be added without consent of both parties.  He has dealt with the AFL and rounded off the discussion by saying that as the AFL could be viewed as the employer as the contract is an AFL contract then perhaps they may have to show that their duty of care has not been breached.

 

 

Bacchanalian Fox,  can you ask your contract law specialist this question.  

 

Generally contracts are not valid if they are outside the law.

If the law changes,  and makes the relevant clause of a contract illegal,  what happens?

 

Is  there  a clause in the standard player contract which gives some level of primacy to the AFL ?

that is,  in football terms,  the AFL comes in as 3rd man up and punches the ball away.

 

There is  the possibility that the AFL has rigged player contracts so they are in fact "the law"

And,  whats worse,  the concept of  "ex post facto" may apply to the primacy of the AFL.   

 

If it does , it is such an abuse of power it is obscene.

I had this in the Paddy Ryder thread, but might be better suited here:

If we are happy to go to court with Robinson and expose the AFL further (the only place we are allowed to under the no disparagement clauses last year), any chance going to court with Paddy could be another way of getting to the AFL, to get to the heart of what happened so it can be shown our duty of care was not breached? Just putting it out there.

Maybe the game plan for Paddy is to ultimately sue ASADA and the AFL for causing pain and suffering through their scare tactics in the investigation.

Maybe a bit fanciful, but would be a just outcome.