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

Remove this Banner Ad

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.
 
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.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
Just saying it's over saturated.

If you can give an animal trapped in a cell a home, you're a good human in my book.
 
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.
If they are paid out it, would be lump sum on departure, which is standard. That is this year, not next. Next year's soft cap is unaffected.

Also you're conflating soft cap and players' salary cap. The soft cap has nothing to do with Betts and Jenkins.
 
If they are paid out it, would be lump sum on departure, which is standard. That is this year, not next. Next year's soft cap is unaffected.

Also you're conflating soft cap and players' salary cap. The soft cap has nothing to do with Betts and Jenkins.
Yep both football admin and player salary cap are affected.
so this yrs football department spend is taxed on departures, not seeking out replacements which may have been thought.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I wonder if he'll try to go the unfair dismissal angle and also seek damages for loss of reputation.
AFC should sue Burton for damaging the club's reputation & gross incompetence. ;)
 
Good point. So basically he has nothing except payout of contract terms to go on. Unless the AFLCA has an award provision for unfair dismissal.

he has an implied expectation and possibly an explicit contractual right for the AFC to act in good faith at all times.

if he has suffered reputational and other damage due to the AFC failing to act in good faith then it all opens up for him
 
he has an implied expectation and possibly an explicit contractual right for the AFC to act in good faith at all times.

if he has suffered reputational and other damage due to the AFC failing to act in good faith then it all opens up for him
That's actually REALLY hard to prove, and not very likely to drive much more benefit for him financially.

If he's concerned about reputation, then sadly he's better off taking this on the chin, and not getting litigeous. Presumably his employer has shown good faith in paying him out to the letter of his contract. If he tries to create a case around further damages, there's a very good chance he'll either lose or at best get a negotiated bump in his settlement that probably isn't worth the downside risk.
 
Unless he's earning less than 140K per year, (which he wouldnt be) then unfair dismissal is out the window.

Access to the statutory arbitral jurisdiction? Perhaps.

That's not the same as saying there's no action that can be brought.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top