can someone please explain two things

Con Gorozidis · Wed 14 Sep 2011 1:24am

How could ross have left when he is contracted?
When was the last time - if ever- a coach in vfl/afl has left a club for another club unilateraly while still under contract and with 12 months to go?
What would be the legal implications? Surely we could get an injunction to stop him coaching another club?

I'm not being a smart alec here. I would like an adult response please.
I can't quite understand what just went on. I don't know enough about contract law but what is the point of having contracts if one party can walk out.
I assume he could have asked to leave and we could have agreed to let him walk. But that was always unlikely.

clarky449 · Post: # 1137822Post **clarky449** » Wed 14 Sep 2011 1:26am

Get out clause

bigred · Post: # 1137830Post **bigred** » Wed 14 Sep 2011 2:52am

I believe it was a case where we would not have stood in his way if he wanted to leave.

Other than that he IS contracted and of course obligated under the conditions of that contract.

But if he doesnt want to be there....

Fidelis · Post: # 1137835Post **Fidelis** » Wed 14 Sep 2011 5:49am

Con Gorozidis wrote: When was the last time - if ever- a coach in vfl/afl has left a club for another club unilateraly while still under contract and with 12 months to go?.

Malthouse?

Fidelis · Post: # 1137836Post **Fidelis** » Wed 14 Sep 2011 5:56am

Wallace left the Bulldogs with 2 years of his contract still to run to allow him to take the Swans' job. In the end Roos thwarted that appointment.

supersaints · Wed 14 Sep 2011 6:10am

According to Westaway the get out clause is for specific things like the club becoming insolvent and unable to pay him

Thinline · Post: # 1137841Post **Thinline** » Wed 14 Sep 2011 8:18am

My question is why the media was hammering the issue so strongly when a contract was still in place.

THAT to me was the weird bit.

Pretty disrespectful to the bloke to ASSUME he would break an agreement...

Lyon G and his mates at 9?

matrix · Post: # 1137844Post **matrix** » Wed 14 Sep 2011 8:32am

thats actually 3 questions

plugger66 · Post: # 1137846Post **plugger66** » Wed 14 Sep 2011 8:39am

A club wants him so it gets in the news. We should be wrapped we have a coach someone wants. Idont have a problem with it at all.

paddy · Post: # 1137858Post **paddy** » Wed 14 Sep 2011 9:40am

I think the case is that if a coach doesn't want to stay at a club, then he is no good to the club anyway... so just let him go.... for the good of the club...

OneEyedSainter77 · Wed 14 Sep 2011 9:40am

Thinline wrote:My question is why the media was hammering the issue so strongly when a contract was still in place.

THAT to me was the weird bit.

Pretty disrespectful to the bloke to ASSUME he would break an agreement...

Lyon G and his mates at 9?

That was my problem too.

I don't mind if the media gets stuck into us over poor on filed or heaven forbid, even off field stuff - that's their job to sell papers. But it is typically a slow news day when one of the biggest stories of the day is a coach STAYING at the club they still have a contract with anyway.

Such a non-story.

Perplexing.

Junction Oval · Wed 14 Sep 2011 9:50am

From a media perspective, it's all about increasing sales and ratings. It's also about media "egos" breaking so-called "stories."

It's all juicy "speculation" which the media and we the public, thrive on - simply count the number of Sainsational posts over the past few days.

Forget the get-out clauses in the contract. If it is clear that a coach no longer has an interest in coaching and putting in the associated effort, then he is no use to the Club and the team - all credibility is lost. It would be untennable for a Club to insist on a coach completing his contract in those circumstances.

fingers · Post: # 1137863Post **fingers** » Wed 14 Sep 2011 10:00am

Con Gorozidis wrote:How could ross have left when he is contracted?
When was the last time - if ever- a coach in vfl/afl has left a club for another club unilateraly while still under contract and with 12 months to go?
What would be the legal implications? Surely we could get an injunction to stop him coaching another club?

I'm not being a smart alec here. I would like an adult response please.
I can't quite understand what just went on. I don't know enough about contract law but what is the point of having contracts if one party can walk out.
I assume he could have asked to leave and we could have agreed to let him walk. But that was always unlikely.

Malthouse WCE
Thompson GEE
Wallace WB (maybe he was told to leave)

I'm sure there are others.

bergholt · Post: # 1137866Post **bergholt** » Wed 14 Sep 2011 10:02am

Con Gorozidis wrote:How could ross have left when he is contracted?

i posted this on another thread, here it is again:

employment contracts are significantly more binding on the organisation than on the individual. especially in a case like this where it's a tough job which requires absolute 100% commitment.

what if lyon wanted to leave? his manager would go to nettlefold and say "sorry mate, his heart's not in it, obviously he can coach on but he'll only be working the bare minimum contracted hours and he'll be taking all his accrued leave."

the club couldn't have an uncommitted coach - that would be suicide - so we'd have to let him go and do what we could to find someone to take his place. regardless of contract status.

maverick · Post: # 1137883Post **maverick** » Wed 14 Sep 2011 10:36am

plugger66 wrote:A club wants him so it gets in the news. We should be wrapped we have a coach someone wants. Idont have a problem with it at all.

Good point.
Maybe we aren't used to it?
Linton Street is usually a coaching graveyard

Moccha · Post: # 1137884Post **Moccha** » Wed 14 Sep 2011 10:41am

Junction Oval wrote:From a media perspective, it's all about increasing sales and ratings. It's also about media "egos" breaking so-called "stories."

It's all juicy "speculation" which the media and we the public, thrive on - simply count the number of Sainsational posts over the past few days.

Forget the get-out clauses in the contract. If it is clear that a coach no longer has an interest in coaching and putting in the associated effort, then he is no use to the Club and the team - all credibility is lost. It would be untennable for a Club to insist on a coach completing his contract in those circumstances.

Kim Hagdorn

saintly · Post: # 1137886Post **saintly** » Wed 14 Sep 2011 10:49am

Thinline wrote:My question is why the media was hammering the issue so strongly when a contract was still in place.

THAT to me was the weird bit.

Pretty disrespectful to the bloke to ASSUME he would break an agreement...

Lyon G and his mates at 9?

could be that, the media hate st kilda. there have been aaying for days now that stkilda is the worst club to deal with

QuestionOfAccuracy · Wed 14 Sep 2011 11:19am

Pretty sure Michael Voss had signed with West Coast to be an assistant coach and then broke that deal to become head coach at Brisbane.

And anyway, if a coach says he wants to leave there is no point forcing him to stay.

QuestionOfAccuracy · Wed 14 Sep 2011 11:23am

Thinline wrote:My question is why the media was hammering the issue so strongly when a contract was still in place.

THAT to me was the weird bit.

Pretty disrespectful to the bloke to ASSUME he would break an agreement...

Lyon G and his mates at 9?

What baffles and frustrates me is how the media are painting Melbourne as such an appealing destination.

We're talking about a club who's President is on his last legs, has a CEO that had lost the respect of the players and was to be sacked prior to Bailey's sacking, is no financially better off than the Saints, and has Garry Lyon appointing the coach, only to leave straight away.

Sure, they have young talent but the administration is totally dysfunctional.

PLUGGER14 · Wed 14 Sep 2011 11:59am

QuestionOfAccuracy wrote:Pretty sure Michael Voss had signed with West Coast to be an assistant coach and then broke that deal to become head coach at Brisbane.

Voss had a specific clause stating "if a senior job became available elsewhere he would be released no question".

Con Gorozidis · Wed 14 Sep 2011 12:27pm

bigred wrote:I believe it was a case where we would not have stood in his way if he wanted to leave.

Other than that he IS contracted and of course obligated under the conditions of that contract.

But if he doesnt want to be there....

yep cool. thanks. read that in todays news. some text in the contract which could be used as a get out.
and yeah i mean at the end of the day noone wants a coach who doesnt want to be there. so fair enough. oh well. on with the business of list mgt which is going to be very hard i imagine.

can someone please explain two things

can someone please explain two things

Re: can someone please explain two things

Re: can someone please explain two things

Re: can someone please explain two things