Bluemour Melting Pot XX - Snark Free Zone

[Opine]

it's a whole other reality for me Opine. You got it. It's like 'whoah!!' There is so much Out there I don't know.

No mbr, it's your visual that's a whole new reality for me. What took me a few paragraphs of editable shit to communicate, you managed to communicate the essence of the same in a single image. I'm in awe.

 

[therubbernub]

Melb get Tomlinson. Pick 40 compo. Glad that trade never went through for him in the dying mins a few years back.

cheap imo

 

[Metalcrusher]

I told yous all I told you's.. the only workable big fish is Gaff and its Kelly related. Hands "Nostradamus" On.

Pull ya head in campaigner!

 

[Magruder]

Zeggie, ok I'll indulge you; assuming the Mods don't consider it to be derailing this thread, in which case I'm happy to continue this discussion privately.

First we discussed whether a clause that affords one party a sole discretionary right to terminate a binding agreement is lawful under the law of contract; you asserted that this occurs in 99.9% of contracts, I disagreed. I then noted that while not invalid as a matter of default, such clauses have been described as 'leonian' in nature; and run the risk of making an agreement illusory, and thus void, because may be deemed as removing essential obligations of one party, and or unreasonably diminishing the underlying benefit of the other.

Second, you used the Lyon example in support of something, I'm not sure what, to which I implicitly responded that merely walking out on a contract doesn't prove the initial clause was valid or invalid; but rather, that whether the Saints had a right to pursue damages was a better indication. To which you accused me of not understanding how damages work, and reminding me that enacting clause in a contract is not breaching a contract.

With due respect, WTF are you on about?

You’ve chosen your ground as a sole discretionary right, fair enough; however an agreement that contains specific circumstances/ events (beyond either parties’ control) that render it amendable, even voidable; is no more nor less illusory for those clauses’ inclusion. Both parties intend to be bound by it in its entirety hence mutual obligations are clearly stated.

I grant you that the presence of a unilateral right could suggest an unconscionably uneven relationship, yet I think you’d be hard placed to argue to the contrary that a high profile players contract is negotiated from a position of relative bargaining parity.

FWIW I don’t see the issue, particularly if the termination or amendment clauses are essentially outlining circumstances in which compliance would cause hardship and distress and therefore amendment would be acceptable in order to ameliorate. In effect formalising compassionate treatment ala Tommy Bell etc

 

[Metalcrusher]

**Needs to go back to contractual/industrial relations law school**

 

[Gavstar]

Just read Saints are going to pay Hill $900,000 a year, they are out of there tiny little minds.

Aints picked up a meniscus issue with Hill in the medical lol oh dear

 

[Sam The Doc]

25 games in 4 years makes him a fringe player at best IMO....another unpopular opinion for sure !!!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

He will get there, patience.

 

[Pafloyul]

Like Gaff more than Wines and Viney.

So do I but his age worries me.

 

[The Blue Weirdo]

Need an ITK appearance. Threads turning into a lawyers dance-off.

 

[Hands On]

Pull ya head in campaigner!

No You

 

[Funk]

I told yous all I told you's.. the only workable big fish is Gaff and its Kelly related. Hands "Nostradamus" On.

All right, all right.

Well done (and you can take your hands off it now..........)

 

[Metalcrusher]

No You

You are!

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Because of lack of certainty.
Assuming your not intending to mean termination due to frustration, the notion of mere convenience can't be left to the discretion of a single party; it has to be capable of objective determination, hence need for prior identification of circumstances that fall within that description. What you seem to be describing, is often found in building contracts, and has been described by at least one court as a "leonian' clause; it runs risk of voiding an entire agreement if deemed solely discretionary, because it might kill of consideration or make it illusory

It's not uncertain if there is 'certainly' a right for one party to terminate and the consideration is couched appropriately in light of that. It's standard practice for contracts to have a termination up in immediate notice or notice of (x) days as being entirely valid.

 

[Metalcrusher]

All right, all right.

Well done (and you can take your hands off it now..........)

Nah he can **** off …. cheeky bloody bastard!

 

[Funk]

Levi was unbelievable this year. Deserves respect.

No one in the comp can ruck, play key forward and key defence as well. Must keep.

IIRC Teague claimed Levi was the best forward/ruck in the league.

 

[Opine]

You’ve chosen your ground as a sole discretionary right, fair enough; however an agreement that contains specific circumstances/ events (beyond either parties’ control) that render it amendable, even voidable; is no more nor less illusory for those clauses’ inclusion. Both parties intend to be bound by it in its entirety hence mutual obligations are clearly stated.

I grant you that the presence of a unilateral right could suggest an unconscionably uneven relationship, yet I think you’d be hard placed to argue to the contrary that a high profile players contract is negotiated from a position of relative bargaining parity.

FWIW I don’t see the issue, particularly if the termination or amendment clauses are essentially outlining circumstances in which compliance would cause hardship and distress and therefore amendment would be acceptable in order to ameliorate. In effect formalising compassionate treatment ala Tommy Bell etc

Now we are talking, You rightfully hit the nail on the head when you noted that mutual obligations were clearly stated, and that circumstances that constitute hardship should be outlined and thus be objectively ascertainable. This is precisely what I've been saying; the result of which, upon occurrence of those circumstances, is a termination.

 

[Metalcrusher]

IIRC Teague claimed Levi was the best forward/ruck in the league.

He probably is ...

 

[BluesTragic]

He will get there, patience.

I’m the first that would love to see him become a jet....as well as Willo


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Hands On]

All right, all right.

Well done (and you can take your hands off it now..........)

Never!!!

 

[Sickblue]

Just on Marchy and Cunners I view them both similarly (Marchy a few more runs on the board)...literally bucket loads of talent, but so bloody injury prone. From memory this was Marchy’s 3rd full season at the blues and every single one of these years has been cut short by injuries. So far in his career he’s had a knee, ankle, elbow, back and the latest one being his neck. Yes, he has raw talent, athleticism and bravery, but is so injury prone which is such a shame.
Cunners; took a little time to find his feet at AFL level, but his explosion from stoppage, step and also the goal sense that we saw in the pre season games and early rounds had me very excited. Unfortunately and much like Marchy he is injury prone and his body has let him down to date.

I hope these boys get a clear run at it at some point, but as it stands they have teased us more than they have delivered.

 

[Opine]

It's not uncertain if there is 'certainly' a right for one party to terminate and the consideration is couched appropriately in light of that. It's standard practice for contracts to have a termination up in immediate notice or notice of (x) days as being entirely valid.

Yes, provided that right doesn't kill off the essential obligations and benefits that are reasonably expected under that agreement.

 

[Funk]

Has anyone seen Thy?

Either got Banned or had heart attack from all the excitement....

 

[Arr0w]

Jabba73 and some others have been banging on about Levi for some time. Finally being able to play as a genuine 2nd string KPF/back up ruckman. Has also added KPD attributes

Don't be surprised if he outlasts Krooz

Serverely underrated

 

[Jimmae]

If WCE will accept a future first for Gaff we should be doing it in a heartbeat. You don’t say no to players like him. A perfect hand and mentor to Walsh/LOB on the wings.

Papley for pick 9, very simple.
Martin for our future 2nd. GC will baulk.
Eddie for our future 4th.

Leaves us with 42 + 47 to find a few gems. Upgrade Gibbons to the senior list. Happy enough to skip the top end of next years academy ridden draft.

We need to draft 3 players in the national draft by the AFL rules, think we need to use pick 71 as well.

Forget that, the AFL will block whichever future pick is traded last... we'd need to bring in a future first or second to prevent that (and have our hand forced in trades).

And that's ignoring the insane valuation for Papley.

Thoughts?

Nooooooo lord no

Jimmae where are you? Don't do anything silly

We're in a simulation and Barker is player ****ing one... he has plot armour.

 

[tarczonandjane]

Either got Banned or had heart attack from all the excitement....

Extinction rebellion protests