Legal Ramifications

Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:25am

I would think the Club will be looking at their legal options ASAP.

I have no access to the actual contract but I review commercial contracts and employment contracts in my business and understand these clauses.

The much trumpted get out clause would have restrictions to it (more than just a 3 month notice period) and it would typically come into effect only for some form of non-performance on the contract by Club, which I doubt is the current case and was certainly not raised as an issue at all.

I highly doubt the get out clause reads - you can leave whenever you want and all you have to do is call our CEO in the afternoon and leave straight away and be appointed by one of our rivals.

Working on the assumption that the club did not fail in their contract obligations, this would mean that the club holds a valid contract with RL.

What does that mean?

1) St Kilda could look at getting a court injunction preventing Lyon from coaching elsewhere if he is not willing to perform his contracted duties at the club

2) St Kilda could look at suing Fremantle for inducing this contract breach in a part of contract law known as "tortious interference"

If my assumptions are correct:

* Fremantle could be coach-less in 2012

* St Kilda may get a nice pay day from Fremantle

I can only pray.

battye · Post: # 1140541Post **battye** » Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:26am

Won't happen. The club is afraid to get the lawyers involved when it comes to the match review panel, so why would they get involved with real legal issues?

Spinner · Post: # 1140546Post **Spinner** » Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:27am

Take them to the f****** cleaners.

Teflon · Post: # 1140548Post **Teflon** » Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:27am

Lets get some purple cash.

They got plenty to splash round obviously...

But in all seriousness........would be nice to set a strong precedent here....dont like where footy is heading with this.

Enrico_Misso · Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:27am

We should take legal action to delay him acting as Freo coach for that 3 months.
Only symbolic.
But might really annoy him.
And make him realise there is a price for his treachory.

battye · Post: # 1140557Post **battye** » Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:28am

Teflon wrote:Lets get some purple cash.

They got plenty to splash round obviously...

But in all seriousness........would be nice to set a strong precedent here....dont like where footy is heading with this.

How is it any different to Thompson leaving Geelong with a year to run on his contract, if my memory serves me correctly?

Sainterman · Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:30am

Who does the legal work for the club?

I wonder how tight that contract is in the end.

Iceman234 · Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:31am

battye wrote:Won't happen. The club is afraid to get the lawyers involved when it comes to the match review panel, so why would they get involved with real legal issues?

Unfortunately I see this happening...

Spineless again from our legal department, although she does look hot...

Teflon · Post: # 1140584Post **Teflon** » Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:32am

battye wrote:
Teflon wrote:Lets get some purple cash.

They got plenty to splash round obviously...

But in all seriousness........would be nice to set a strong precedent here....dont like where footy is heading with this.
How is it any different to Thompson leaving Geelong with a year to run on his contract, if my memory serves me correctly?

Had Thompsons management and Cats acted in good faith believing they had a deal on the table only to be blindsighted by a money hungry grub in the background?

Was Thompson retiring players a week prior to leaving?

Thompson left Cats cause he didnt want the top job anymore and was burnt out after 2 Flags and 10 years?
Lyon left for cash with list a rabble - the circumstances are nowhere near the same.

Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:33am

different because Thompson:

a) left saying he was taking a break and had no job - Geelong let him go

b) time lapsed

c) pretended to just waltz in and say to Essendon he was interested

d) didnt take up position as head coach

A very well stage managed process to avoid the legal issues above

Lyon and Fremantle ... not the same at all

Richter · Post: # 1140593Post **Richter** » Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:34am

Thompson left Geelong by mutual agreement and then shafted them after he waited out the 3 months following the contract.

Pretty sure that we would have a good case to get some compo from Freo for induced breaking of contract.

Doubt it would need to come to a court case, but why not grab a couple of hundred 'G's.

meher baba · Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:36am

Why bother? What would it achieve or prove? The entire footy world would turn against us. The club would be put info even greater turmoil.

battye · Post: # 1140606Post **battye** » Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:37am

Teflon wrote:
battye wrote:
Teflon wrote:Lets get some purple cash.

They got plenty to splash round obviously...

But in all seriousness........would be nice to set a strong precedent here....dont like where footy is heading with this.
How is it any different to Thompson leaving Geelong with a year to run on his contract, if my memory serves me correctly?
Had Thompsons management and Cats acted in good faith believing they had a deal on the table only to be blindsighted by a money hungry grub in the background?

Was Thompson retiring players a week prior to leaving?

Thompson left Cats cause he didnt want the top job anymore and was burnt out after 2 Flags and 10 years?
Lyon left for cash with list a rabble - the circumstances are nowhere near the same.

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. I agree there seems to be more deceit in this case, but I meant in response to your comment of "the way footy is heading" this isn't exactly uncharted territory.

Verdun66 · Post: # 1140609Post **Verdun66** » Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:37am

http://www.saintsational.com/forum/view ... hp?t=72435

I put it in another thread. They would surely have to buy out his contract, having encouraged him to break ours.

That'll teach him to negotiate his own deal!

Iceman234 · Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:37am

meher baba wrote:Why bother? What would it achieve or prove? The entire footy world would turn against us. The club would be put info even greater turmoil.

LOL well that would be a turn up if the footy world turned against the Saints...lol

Richter · Post: # 1140613Post **Richter** » Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:38am

meher baba wrote:Why bother?

$$

Didn't we make a $1.5m loss this year?

Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:42am

agreed that the inducing contract breach will probably normally get settled ... probably for $200,000 to $300,000 ... but if Saints want to cause nuicense value rather than actual compensation ... wellit could hit court ... and we would win not only $s but send a very strong message.

As for a court injunction ... that would be a very interesting case and a huge disruption to Fremantle. Need to get it in place before we appoint a head coach and then let them fight to get the injunction lifted. The legal battle could prevent Lyon from coaching them for 3 to 6 months easily.

plugger66 · Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:44am

As if the club are going to take it to court. There will be so much press as it is why would we wnt to drag it on even longer. Think about it. They arent going to go to court.

Richter · Post: # 1140637Post **Richter** » Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:45am

meher baba wrote:The entire footy world would turn against us. The club would be put info even greater turmoil.

Not too sure about where the footy world stands on this.

Watching the footy show tonight, I reckon there's a fair few who aren't going to be looking so kindly on RL for knifing so many in the back.....

In particular, whilst I think he's a tool, Mark Harvey is a footy man who I'm quite sure has plenty of Melbourne footy friends who will be seeing how hurt he is....

The next few days will be interesting...

My hope is that the club comes out defiant, angry and determined to diligently go about finding the new man.

Verdun66 · Post: # 1140638Post **Verdun66** » Fri 16 Sep 2011 12:45am

So, they will settle out of court....and we at least get some money.

Which we need.

noreason41 · Fri 16 Sep 2011 3:35am

What about Lyon & The management company?

Does ESP Have any right to sue Lyon over the money they lost as they would have negotiated a contract for him?
Is he under contract with ESP? Or is he allowed to negotiate behind their back?

dcstkfc · Post: # 1140885Post **dcstkfc** » Fri 16 Sep 2011 3:48am

BackFromUSA wrote:different because Thompson:

a) left saying he was taking a break and had no job - Geelong let him go

b) time lapsed

c) pretended to just waltz in and say to Essendon he was interested

d) didnt take up position as head coach

A very well stage managed process to avoid the legal issues above

Lyon and Fremantle ... not the same at all

Thompson won two premierships

Con Gorozidis · Fri 16 Sep 2011 4:29am

I raised this a few days ago. An injunction is an option. Wonder what the wording is. maybe the last year was an option?

Eastern · Post: # 1140976Post **Eastern** » Fri 16 Sep 2011 8:38am

Sainterman wrote:Who does the legal work for the club?

I wonder how tight that contract is in the end.

Our Vice President, Ross Levin is one of the top Employment Law experts in the country. The problem is that he has been over-ruled by the Board before when he suggested we sue KD !!

plugger66 · Post: # 1140984Post **plugger66** » Fri 16 Sep 2011 8:42am

Eastern wrote:
Sainterman wrote:Who does the legal work for the club?

I wonder how tight that contract is in the end.
Our Vice President, Ross Levin is one of the top Employment Law experts in the country. The problem is that he has been over-ruled by the Board before when he suggested we sue KD !!

That was a correct decision and not doing any legal stuff here would also be the correct decision.