Can’t they just leak all the info to a reporter? Don’t have to name sources.
Written evidence from who?
Sorry - I thought you said they would cop a fine. Can’t see where you mentioned damages.
Why would you get damages if it’s not disparaging?
Their legal counsel. Again its a civil matter, the court would simply need to be shown what the contract was, where it was breached & what the damages were. I can’t see why there would be any need for anyone from the AFL to be called to give verbal evidence.
Are you trying to play semantics? IF it went to court Bomba & Hird would face the possibility of a damages payout to the AFL. Calling it a fine is possibly not the best term I could have used but that’s essentially what a court could rule. What we’ve already seen from the case Jackson Taylor brought is that the AFL play dirty & would threaten financial ruin. This is whats at stake for Bomba, Hird &/or anyone else who tries to fight the AFL.
1 Like
That’s good, Gil, through counsel would have to show the court how and why it was breached.
So what evidence would counsel obtain, and from whom, to prove why the contract was breached?
The law is a narrow path with highly paid people keeping it as narrow as possible. It’s not a floodgate that can be opened.
Don’t make it out to be semantics when it’s not. Fines are not damages.
Ah, you do realise Gil is NOT the AFL right? You do realise that Gil doesn’t have to show anything. The AFL are a legal entity & they can bring any action as the AFL not as Gil. The agreements, contracts etc are all set up as the AFL so the breach would be brought by the AFL. Unless Gil brought the action citing personal damages the entire matter would be at arms length.
1 Like
Sorry, I haven’t seen the non disparagement contract . Have you?
Can you get back to the evidence bit. I would like to know the evidence the AFL or Gil needs to provide the court to prove breach of the contract.
Its very very much semantics & you still seem either confused or deliberately obtuse. I didn’t say that fines were damages. I said they faced fines & then clarified that they face a damages claim from the AFL which could be a significant amount of money. I don’t believe calling a ruling from a court to pay money a “fine” is that big a stretch but again, I’m not trying to play semantic.
Sorry, but when someone says you’re going face a heavy fine for breach of contract one of the reactions is the guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
James Hird’s affidavit - Fed Court - included his Deed of Settlement.
“6. Non-disparagement.
6.1 The parties will not make any disparaging statement or comments about each other in relation to the Investigation, the Charge, or any proceedings related thereto, save for any statement or comments which reflect the contents of this Deed.”
1 Like
Sorry but when somebody thinks that Gil will take the stand & be asked about bullying in a case brought by the AFL then the logical reaction is you don’t know what you are talking about. When a company loses a court case & is ordered to pay damages this is often referred to as a fine. I have no problem with acknowledging that fine wasn’t the best word I could have used but again its semantics to suggest that what was implied changes in any significant way if I has said “faced significant payouts to the AFL”. The point was that Hird & Bomba would face the possibility of losing a lot of money, if you didn’t understand that the term “fine” meant that then that’s your comprehension fail.
Can you get back to the evidence bit, I don’t want to fail again.
Do you know if Vlad was a party?
Right after you get back to the bit where you explain why Gil would have to give evidence.
I’m saying Gil will need to provide evidence to explain why comments from Hirdy and Bomba about his bullying are disparaging.
And I’m saying all the AFL would need to do is show the contract, point out the clause that says Bomba & Hird can’t make disparaging remarks about the AFL because again for the millionth time the contract is with the AFL not any specific current of former AFL executive, & then the AFL would seek damages. Gil would not be required to appear to show that making disparaging remarks against Gil, Vlad or any other AFL employees is a breach of contract. Again this would not be Gil seeking damages, it would be the AFL. Now if you believe you have some greater knowledge of contractual cases that gives you confidence that Gil would appear then by all means provide us all with your insights. Till then you comments started out more as a whimsical hope than anything insightful & I was simply trying to reply with a light hearted reply that its not gunna happen. We are done here.
1 Like
Sorry for my failures, but I would have thought the determination of a statement being disparaging rather than stating the facts of a sequence of events could only be achieved by the assessment of a judge of the evidence presented to him. I think you miss the point about the requirement for a plaintiff to prove a statement is disparaging. I reckon there would all sorts of argument about what is and what is not disparaging.
For you to say all the AFL has to do is point out the non disparagement clause in the contract and receive a whole pile of damages is fairy land stuff.