Grant Thomas paid $100,000 hush money by St Kilda

[plugger66]

Why would the player's leave entitlements have any relevance?

Because it is an industry entiltment I think.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well I can answer this one for sure. You have no idea.

[JeffDunne]

Thanks for that Barks.

[JeffDunne]

Well I can answer this one for sure. You have no idea.

I really can't be bothered plugger if you can't see the stupidity in your comment.

[Mr Magic]

Without having to go back through 15 pages of this thread, I seem to recall taht at some sage during his tenure, GT's 'Corporate Entity' was actually employed to supply 'coaching duties' rather than GT being an employee?

Those with HR experience would be better placed to offer an opinion on this, but my layman's thinking is that this is done to legally minimize the taxation on the amount. Also by doing it this way there would be no requirement of the Club to pay the 'on-costs' that are invlolved with all employees like Superannuation, Sick Leave, Annual Leave etc?

Is this one of the 'problems' re the AL? The Club may feel that if they are 'sub-contracting' GT's company to provide the services then there is no requirement on their behalf to pay that company any AL?

[JeffDunne]

I'm sure that's their argument for at least the last contract he was on MM.

IMO both parties look like they acted highly unprofessional in their dealings and that's what's causing the confusion.

FFS, the bloke had a contract, it should take 5 minutes to resolve if it had been properly drafted. Same with the hush money (based on Barks' explanation).

[barks4eva]

[ quote="JeffDunne"]Why would the player's leave entitlements have any relevance?[/quote]

Because it is an industry entiltment I think.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

It's nice to agree with you for a change Jeffrey

[barks4eva]

Is this one of the 'problems' re the AL? The Club may feel that if they are 'sub-contracting' GT's company to provide the services then there is no requirement on their behalf to pay that company any AL?

Actually this is a relevant point, forgive me, I don't remember all the precise details

but I "think" the annual leave claim for amount's outstanding is for the period of time, before the "sub contracting" with GDT solutions kicked in.

I believe this is the case, but I could be wrong.

[saintsRrising]

Is this one of the 'problems' re the AL? The Club may feel that if they are 'sub-contracting' GT's company to provide the services then there is no requirement on their behalf to pay that company any AL?

Actually this is a relevant point, forgive me, I don't remember all the precise details

but I "think" the annual leave claim for amount's outstanding is for the period of time, before the "sub contracting" with GDT solutions kicked in.
I believe this is the case, but I could be wrong.

If so...that is very very interesting.

If so effectively GT would not have been an employee fg the club for some time then.

Any outstanding leave should have been resolved when GT ceased becoming an employee of the Club.


Now the Club maintains that it directed GT to take his leave...and so from the clubs viewpoint there was nothing to resolve at that time???


Whereas with GT...IF he believed he had leave owing....why did he did not resolve it at that time???? Why did he not seek to square the ledger then?

[asiu]

plugger knows what he's talking about when he says we should stop whinging about the umpires & dimmy and friends

i liked gt (on behalf of the club) taking the **** on

the media 'used' to be all over us as well ,

as was sheedy


take em all on imo ....go hard ....pay the price and get on with it

we gotta beat the lot of em

[Shaggy]

The new Board hasn't disagreed with the numbers. By my calculation they were prepared to give GT what he wanted in terms of hush money and annual leave taking into account past payments.

You continually get so much wrong Shaggy, I'm not sure I can be even bothered correcting you.

What you just wrote is garbage.

Lol ... I deserve that.

However I don't believe the annual leave dispute can simply be about:-

> Saints tell GT to take 4 weeks holiday each year during the time the players are off which GT doesn't

> GT agrees that if Saints pay $15,000 fine (which they pay) he will forego his annual leave claim

> GT signs a stat dec he has no annual leave claim after the Saints have paid the $15,000 fine

> GT then agrees and signs a full and final settlement with the Saints with a top up settlement.

Based upon the above GT is done and there is no claim.

I am more interested why GT continued to court.

He is not stupid or is he? Why did the Saints offer him $125 k settlement in the circumstances?

I am happy to be a d**khead but there must be more to it .

[Shaggy]

Is this one of the 'problems' re the AL? The Club may feel that if they are 'sub-contracting' GT's company to provide the services then there is no requirement on their behalf to pay that company any AL?

Actually this is a relevant point, forgive me, I don't remember all the precise details

but I "think" the annual leave claim for amount's outstanding is for the period of time, before the "sub contracting" with GDT solutions kicked in.
I believe this is the case, but I could be wrong.

If so...that is very very interesting.

If so effectively GT would not have been an employee fg the club for some time then.

Any outstanding leave should have been resolved when GT ceased becoming an employee of the Club.


Now the Club maintains that it directed GT to take his leave...and so from the clubs viewpoint there was nothing to resolve at that time???


Whereas with GT...IF he believed he had leave owing....why did he did not resolve it at that time???? Why did he not seek to square the ledger then?

The bloke driving the business and suing the company at the same time doesn't work .

[saintsRrising]

The bloke driving the business and suing the company at the same time doesn't work .

Can't follow you logic there....

We can only assume that at the time he went from being an employee to a company supplying services that GT should have known that he would in future be responsible for all of his own leave arrangements.......BUT that more importantly that his existing employee arrangements had to cease.

Sick leave etc....could not be carried on to his new company.

Everything should have been resolved then and there.

If he could not reach agreement...he should have remained an employee.

I would assume that allowing GT to do this would have greatly enhanced his effective income.....ability to split his income, etc etc...

[BAM! (shhhh)]

The bloke driving the business and suing the company at the same time doesn't work .

Can't follow you logic there....

We can only assume that at the time he went from being an employee to a company supplying services that GT should have known that he would in future be responsible for all of his own leave arrangements.......BUT that more importantly that his existing employee arrangements had to cease.

Sick leave etc....could not be carried on to his new company.

Everything should have been resolved then and there.

If he could not reach agreement...he should have remained an employee.

I would assume that allowing GT to do this would have greatly enhanced his effective income.....ability to split his income, etc etc...

This was covered in Barks posts sumamrising proceedings. Thomas raised it at the time of the change, the club disagreed, eventually agreeing to pay the 15k fine if he'd drop the leave claim.

I wouldn't think it terribly difficult to at least argue (whether the court accepts or not is a different matter) that this would constitute being forced into an agreement under duress - if he needed the 15k immediately and the fight for leave had no direct end in sight with no guarentees other than being a terrible news story as the coach and board fought over leave entitlements...

It isn't cut and dried. It's a measure of the size of the sum of money under contention that either side thought it worth going to lawyers, but I would imagine small claims court would see it's share of similar disputes.

[asiu]

i'm just talking to barks on the dog and bone , who's at the summing up procedure in court today

re read this post he made ......

The situation is this, to the best of my understanding

The club/board according to AF, were prepared to offer $100,000 to Thomas subject to certain conditions.

The first draft of these conditions was quickly put together as initially the club were going to inform Thomas that his services were no longer required on the Thursday 14th September, but were advised that it would get out to the media if they delayed any further and so subsequently contacted Thomas and told him to meet with the board at Butterss house on Tuesday/12th September.

The first original draft of the conditions were agreed to in principle at the meeting on the 12th,

the club told Thomas that it would have the complete full final draft available to sign off in 7 days.

Thomas left the country for a holiday with his family on the 19th September, leaving the issue unresolved as the final draft had not been signed off on.

I am a bit unclear as to what happened next,

It would seem that the final draft was never actually signed off on, so therefore the offer was off the table,

This is all to the best of my understanding.

hmmmmm

it seems the stkfc didn't pay the hush money , because gt never signed off on it

..........no signature = no deal


barks will fill ya's in this evening ............from talking with him,
besides the judge, 2 court officials , legal council , af , r.levine and gt the only other person in the whole court is b4e...not even any press



the club will finish after the recess , then gt's side sum up this arvo

[rodgerfox]

....from talking with him,
besides the judge, 2 court officials , legal council , af , r.levine and gt the only other person in the whole court is b4e...not even any press

That is just so, so creepy.

[asiu]

helps keep the 'days of our drearies' rolling along

good on him , imo

never know , might get a chance to have a yak with af, rl or gt

they certainly know who he is

[saintsRrising]

it seems the stkfc didn't pay the hush money , because gt never signed off on it

..........no signature = no deal

= perhaps why there was no hush.....

[saintsRrising]

...........from talking with him,
besides the judge, 2 court officials , legal council , af , r.levine and gt the only other person in the whole court is b4e...not even any press

Levine..apart from being a lawyer.....is on the current Board, and was on the old Board too.

[JeffDunne]

If GT's lawyer can't argue the "an agreement is an agreement" line then he needs a new lawyer.

RB & AF are both on the record in the media. I'm sure Grant could have got a copy from his new employer.

Now I can understand us arguing the "he broke the agreement" line (that is if they can back up their claims), but I can't see how they could possibly argue there wasn't an agreement (signed or not).

[Mr Magic]

...........from talking with him,
besides the judge, 2 court officials , legal council , af , r.levine and gt the only other person in the whole court is b4e...not even any press

Levine..apart from being a lawyer.....is on the current Board, and was on the old Board too.

and I believe his area of expertise is IR Laws.

[saintsRrising]

If GT's lawyer can't argue the "an agreement is an agreement" line then he needs a new lawyer.

RB & AF are both on the record in the media. I'm sure Grant could have got a copy from his new employer.

Now I can understand us arguing the "he broke the agreement" line (that is if they can back up their claims), but I can't see how they could possibly argue there wasn't an agreement (signed or not).

So what is Levine's view???

And what was in the agreement.

It may well be that it is the "extra" conditions where the problem is......

[JeffDunne]

sRr, I think we'll have to wait for a live cross to the courtroom to get that one answered.

[asiu]

nah, lol, no live crosses ....gotta head back to work

you'll have to wait until johnny on the spot, logs in this evening

[barks4eva]

nah, lol, no live crosses ....gotta head back to work

you'll have to wait until johnny on the spot, logs in this evening

I've got my johnny and trust me, I'm looking for a spot.

[asiu]

yr a worry

did ya have fun in there today?