News 2019 Rumour File - discuss rumours here! (Part 2)

[Kane McGoodwin]

No Ruccui had a weekday spot and Tredders replace that,

Thanks- shows how little I listen to them these days.

Now just need him to shift into the afternoon slot to make it listenable...

 

[1970crow]

why would you be sure of that?

I’ve got an inkling that they’ve just paid him out.

 

[1970crow]

ah... paying out a contract doesn’t remove other remedies, particularly if he feels his reputation has been unfairly trashed

an employee has a lot more options than just contract pay out if it’s been handled badly

It’s not been further trashed by him being moved on. The only way it could have gotten worse is if we kept him on.

 

[Sanders]

It’s not been further trashed by him being moved on. The only way it could have gotten worse is if we kept him on.

that might be for others to determine

 

[Sanders]

I’ve got an inkling that they’ve just paid him out.

there’s no such thing as just paid him out.

if they’ve terminated outside the terms of his contract (almost certainly true) then he is entitled to seek restitution to the same point he would have been in prior to the contract failure. Which is more than the mutually unexpired contract obligations on both sides

 

[1970crow]

there’s no such thing as just paid him out.

if they’ve terminated outside the terms of his contract (almost certainly true) then he is entitled to seek restitution to the same point he would have been in prior to the contract failure. Which is more than the mutually unexpired contract obligations on both sides

unless there’s a payout clause in the contract.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

It’s not been further trashed by him being moved on. The only way it could have gotten worse is if we kept him on.

Burton trashed his reputation by himself.

Exhibit A - that interview.

 

[Sanders]

unless there’s a payout clause in the contract.

no. That wouldn’t limit his other remedies

 

[1970crow]

no. That wouldn’t limit his other remedies

If there’s a termination clause subject to certain financial requirements ie full or partial payout, and we activate that clause as per those terms, then surely there is no remedy required. That his marketplace stocks have fallen due to us exercising our contractual rights cannot, or should not, be actionable. If there was risk, I have little doubt that it would have been used by Roo and Chapman as an excuse to keep him on until he was able to find another job and ‘resign’.

 

[Cap]

there’s no such thing as just paid him out.

if they’ve terminated outside the terms of his contract (almost certainly true) then he is entitled to seek restitution to the same point he would have been in prior to the contract failure. Which is more than the mutually unexpired contract obligations on both sides

I wonder if he'll try to go the unfair dismissal angle and also seek damages for loss of reputation.

 

[1970crow]

I wonder if he'll try to go the unfair dismissal angle and also seek damages for loss of reputation.

If he’s been terminated according to the available rights of the AFC, then he has no further rights. The fact that it’s even been brought up is testament to the reality that any case he has would be extremely weak. If it wasn’t, the first that we’d hear would be that the proceedings have been commenced against the club. This is nothing more than an arrogant and incompetent worker crying into his beer, getting angry, lashing out and his blubberings making it on to the public record.

 

[Dudersaurus]

If he’s been terminated according to the available rights of the AFC, then he has no further rights. The fact that it’s even been brought up is testament to the reality that any case he has would be extremely weak. If it wasn’t, the first that we’d hear would be that the AFC proceedings have been commenced. This is nothing more than an arrogant and incompetent worker crying into his beer, getting angry, lashing out and his blubberings making it on to the public record.

Short answer without knowing the terms of his employment, nobody knows.

If he was an employee, getting positive feedback on his performance (as he did in public), then suddenly and publicly terminated (employment-wise only) for unsatisfactory performance without capacity for "performance management", then he totally has potential for an unfair dismissal claim.

If he was a contractor with a 'can be let go at the discretion of the board' clause then very probably nothing more.

Not sure what you mean by 'available rights of the AFC', but they can't just make up rules inconsistent with legislation.

 

[FR0GGY]

So if he sues us for unfair dismissal, will we get our money back from the review ?

 

[1970crow]

Short answer without knowing the terms of his employment, nobody knows.

If he was an employee, getting positive feedback on his performance (as he did in public), then suddenly and publicly terminated (employment-wise only) for unsatisfactory performance without capacity for "performance management", then he totally has potential for an unfair dismissal claim.

If he was a contractor with a 'can be let go at the discretion of the board' clause then very probably nothing more.

Not sure what you mean by 'available rights of the AFC', but they can't just make up rules inconsistent with legislation.

Both parties have rights and obligations under the contract. If the AFC has acted in accordance with a right afforded them under that contract, then unless the contract attempts to operate outside of legislation, they merely activated rights provided them. Burton is presumably on a fixed term contract, it’s fairly ordinary that a contract of this type include a payout clause.

 

[1970crow]

So if he sues us for unfair dismissal, will we get our money back from the review ?

Were you setting up this morning at about 10:30?

 

[Red mist]

So if he sues us for unfair dismissal, will we get our money back from the review ?

Its funny how going over the soft cap was spruiked as spending more on the department rather than paying out failures.
So 2 sections of the footy department are running on less this yr.

 

[FR0GGY]

Were you setting up this morning at about 10:30?

Yep

 

[1970crow]

Yep

we should have dropped in, we were walking past and I thought it was you, but didn’t want to bother you.

 

[Dudersaurus]

Its funny how going over the soft cap was spruiked as spending more on the department rather than paying out failures.
So 2 sections of the footy department are running on less this yr.

Exceeding the soft cap doesn't have any real carry-over effect. It is a double cost hit in the year of breach (assumed this year) so normal available cap next year.

 

[FR0GGY]

we should have dropped in, we were walking past and I thought it was you, but didn’t want to bother you.

Ah you should have, I haven’t been in it much. Been out talking!

 

[Red mist]

Exceeding the soft cap doesn't have any real carry-over effect. It is a double cost hit in the year of breach (assumed this year) so normal available cap next year.

It does have a carry over effect. Paying out people that aren’t there. For the good, but it was sold as inclusions.
We are also paying two to play against us as well.

 

[CrowinNT]

Are the accounting periods in AFL traditional 1 July to 30 June
Or different. ?
In education where I worked schools were I Jan - 31 Dec for example

 

[TexForPM]

Get a rescue dog.

Can't like this enough.

Look online through the rescue sites.
If you still want a bran neu dog after that you have no soul.

[emoji317]

 

[Pea Nut]

Short answer without knowing the terms of his employment, nobody knows.

If he was an employee, getting positive feedback on his performance (as he did in public), then suddenly and publicly terminated (employment-wise only) for unsatisfactory performance without capacity for "performance management", then he totally has potential for an unfair dismissal claim.

If he was a contractor with a 'can be let go at the discretion of the board' clause then very probably nothing more.

Not sure what you mean by 'available rights of the AFC', but they can't just make up rules inconsistent with legislation.

Unless he's earning less than 140K per year, (which he wouldnt be) then unfair dismissal is out the window.

 

[Red mist]

Can't like this enough.

Look online through the rescue sites.
If you still want a bran neu dog after that you have no soul.

[emoji317]

or you can have a tumbling mess pup that endears your soul. Each to his own.
Family member has a rescue greyhound. So both sides , but Jesus, once he got through the front door and ran like buggery.