Will Spencer

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news...702011713.html

I guess the problem for Sonny - I Want More Money - Williams is that
although he may be in France, his million dollar property couldn't fit in
his suitcase and it will soon become the property of the doggies.

-ws

viper

"Will Spencer" <will@nospam.ivalid> wrote in message
news:slsn5c4b8sax$.1w4ijt9fntygu$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>
> http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news...702011713.html
>
> I guess the problem for Sonny - I Want More Money - Williams is that
> although he may be in France, his million dollar property couldn't fit in
> his suitcase and it will soon become the property of the doggies.
>
> -ws

Interesting, talking to a mate of mine that is a QC in consistent demand.
Although crim law is his go, feels SBW and his legal team will play a card
somewhat different to what people expect.

SBW signed off on a contract at a time when the coaching and playing staff
were significantly different and the future looked very, very bright.
Canterbury then started to fall apart. What undertakings did the Bulldogs
provide in terms of the playing roster, future signings, sponsorships (3rd
party and otherwise), the tenure of the coach etc etc. ?

The affadavits will make very interesting reading. It's not drawing a long
bow to suggest that while provisions for these 'changes' were not reflected
in the written contract, that does not mean they could not be interpreted as
'conditions of employment'.

Viper

ruud

"viper" <viper@rugby.com> wrote in aus.sport.rugby-league:

>
> "Will Spencer" <will@nospam.ivalid> wrote in message
> news:slsn5c4b8sax$.1w4ijt9fntygu$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>>
>> http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news...eague/2008/08/
>> 05/1217702011713.html
>>
>> I guess the problem for Sonny - I Want More Money - Williams is that
>> although he may be in France, his million dollar property couldn't
>> fit in his suitcase and it will soon become the property of the
>> doggies.
>>
>> -ws
>
> Interesting, talking to a mate of mine that is a QC in consistent
> demand. Although crim law is his go, feels SBW and his legal team will
> play a card somewhat different to what people expect.
>
> SBW signed off on a contract at a time when the coaching and playing
> staff were significantly different and the future looked very, very
> bright. Canterbury then started to fall apart. What undertakings did
> the Bulldogs provide in terms of the playing roster, future signings,
> sponsorships (3rd party and otherwise), the tenure of the coach etc
> etc. ?
>
> The affadavits will make very interesting reading. It's not drawing a
> long bow to suggest that while provisions for these 'changes' were
> not reflected in the written contract, that does not mean they could
> not be interpreted as 'conditions of employment'.

clutching at straws. The **** is going to get cleaned out. By the time
it's all over he would have made more if he'd stayed with the dogs.

viper

"ruud" <noemail@hotmail.scum> wrote in message
news:X6Tlk.25653$IK1.21717@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "viper" <viper@rugby.com> wrote in aus.sport.rugby-league:
>
>>
>> "Will Spencer" <will@nospam.ivalid> wrote in message
>> news:slsn5c4b8sax$.1w4ijt9fntygu$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>>>
>>> http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news...eague/2008/08/
>>> 05/1217702011713.html
>>>
>>> I guess the problem for Sonny - I Want More Money - Williams is that
>>> although he may be in France, his million dollar property couldn't
>>> fit in his suitcase and it will soon become the property of the
>>> doggies.
>>>
>>> -ws
>>
>> Interesting, talking to a mate of mine that is a QC in consistent
>> demand. Although crim law is his go, feels SBW and his legal team will
>> play a card somewhat different to what people expect.
>>
>> SBW signed off on a contract at a time when the coaching and playing
>> staff were significantly different and the future looked very, very
>> bright. Canterbury then started to fall apart. What undertakings did
>> the Bulldogs provide in terms of the playing roster, future signings,
>> sponsorships (3rd party and otherwise), the tenure of the coach etc
>> etc. ?
>>
>> The affadavits will make very interesting reading. It's not drawing a
>> long bow to suggest that while provisions for these 'changes' were
>> not reflected in the written contract, that does not mean they could
>> not be interpreted as 'conditions of employment'.
>
> clutching at straws. The **** is going to get cleaned out. By the time
> it's all over he would have made more if he'd stayed with the dogs.

That's a very compelling legal argument

Viper

ruud

"viper" <viper@rugby.com> wrote in aus.sport.rugby-league:

> That's a very compelling legal argument

What, as opposed to your shite that had no legal argument whatsoever?
Making it up as you go along might sound good in moot at uni buddy but
you'll have to do better when you actually get to court. Courts tend to
favour the contract unless there's a very good reason not to. Your reasons
were utter shite. Happy to help.

ruud

"viper" <viper@rugby.com> wrote in aus.sport.rugby-league:

> That's a very compelling legal argument

Let judge ruudy save you the legal fees, here's my judgment ...

You're a member of a team. Teammates chage over the course of a contract.
Coaches change over the course of a contract. Your individual contract is
not with the coach or your teammates, it's with the Canterbury Bulldogs.
There is no provision in the contract for you to leave just because you
don't like the coach or your teammates or your chances of success or the
money you canmake elsewhere. You signed a contract for 5 years with the
Canterbury Bulldogs and ran away after 1. You have no legal basis
whatsoever for running away.



Now, I don't think it's going to go that far. I think the Bulldogs will
settle with Toulon. Sonny will be happy because if he's good enough he'll
play for the All Blacks (and I think he'll be good enough) and both clubs
will be happy, the Bulldogs because they free up a lot of salary and get
their money back (and then some) and Toulon because they've got Sonny. If
he can fix his head up he will be a great in either code.

viper

"ruud" <noemail@hotmail.scum> wrote in message
news:zeUlk.25666$IK1.9429@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "viper" <viper@rugby.com> wrote in aus.sport.rugby-league:
>
>> That's a very compelling legal argument
>
> What, as opposed to your shite that had no legal argument whatsoever?
> Making it up as you go along might sound good in moot at uni buddy but
> you'll have to do better when you actually get to court. Courts tend to
> favour the contract unless there's a very good reason not to. Your reasons
> were utter shite. Happy to help.

If you want to argue the point 'buddy', best to equip yourself with some
facts and/or
understanding, rather than punch out an opinion that might have been the
consensus
at the Leagues Club.

I didn't provide a 'legal argument', I provided a legal opinion from a QC. I
know asking you
to absorb someone elses lucid thought might be drawing a long bow, but you
might just take
the time to read the response again.

Let me make it simple....a contract might be a written agreement. A contract
might
an oral agreement. A contract might also be comprised of both. Now on the
contrary
old fruit, it is me who is 'happy to help'

Viper

viper

"ruud" <noemail@hotmail.scum> wrote in message
news:mnUlk.25668$IK1.13197@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "viper" <viper@rugby.com> wrote in aus.sport.rugby-league:
>
>> That's a very compelling legal argument
>
> Let judge ruudy save you the legal fees, here's my judgment ...
>
> You're a member of a team. Teammates chage over the course of a contract.
> Coaches change over the course of a contract. Your individual contract is
> not with the coach or your teammates, it's with the Canterbury Bulldogs.
> There is no provision in the contract for you to leave just because you
> don't like the coach or your teammates or your chances of success or the
> money you canmake elsewhere. You signed a contract for 5 years with the
> Canterbury Bulldogs and ran away after 1. You have no legal basis
> whatsoever for running away.

>
> Now, I don't think it's going to go that far. I think the Bulldogs will
> settle with Toulon. Sonny will be happy because if he's good enough he'll
> play for the All Blacks (and I think he'll be good enough) and both clubs
> will be happy, the Bulldogs because they free up a lot of salary and get
> their money back (and then some) and Toulon because they've got Sonny. If
> he can fix his head up he will be a great in either code.

Your second attempt was only marginally less lame than the first

Viper

ruud

"viper" <viper@rugby.com> wrote in aus.sport.rugby-league:

>
> "ruud" <noemail@hotmail.scum> wrote in message
> news:zeUlk.25666$IK1.9429@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> "viper" <viper@rugby.com> wrote in aus.sport.rugby-league:
>>
>>> That's a very compelling legal argument
>>
>> What, as opposed to your shite that had no legal argument whatsoever?
>> Making it up as you go along might sound good in moot at uni buddy
>> but you'll have to do better when you actually get to court. Courts
>> tend to favour the contract unless there's a very good reason not to.
>> Your reasons were utter shite. Happy to help.
>
> If you want to argue the point 'buddy', best to equip yourself with
> some facts and/or
> understanding, rather than punch out an opinion that might have been
> the consensus
> at the Leagues Club.
>
> I didn't provide a 'legal argument', I provided a legal opinion from a
> QC. I know asking you
> to absorb someone elses lucid thought might be drawing a long bow, but
> you might just take
> the time to read the response again.
>
> Let me make it simple....a contract might be a written agreement. A
> contract might
> an oral agreement. A contract might also be comprised of both. Now on
> the contrary
> old fruit, it is me who is 'happy to help'
>
> Viper

Let me make this easy for you moron. QCs clutch at straws all the time.
Your friend is clutching at straws. He has zero chance of succeeding. His
argument is laughable. If any lawyer goes into court with that argument
they're going to bankrupt Sonny when the Bulldogs take away all his
Australian assets. How much is Sonny paying for this laughable opinion?
We'll see whos's right. Me or your mate's laughable argument that you
wrote down on the back of a beer coaster.

dv8cpl@gmail.com

.. . SillyBill's legal team will have to come up with some defence . .
the one suggested is a fairly weak one but one none the less . . .
SillyBill had the option to insert a review clause should team make-up
change as many other high profile players do to use as a get out. His
salary is not dependant on his performance or that of the club. If
he is allowed to walk away based on the arguement mentioned then every
other player at the Doggies can now use SillyBill's desertion to get
out as well . . as can every other player at every other club when
there is a change in player makeup or coaching change . . not likely
really hey!