List Mgmt. Cam McCarthy Requests Trade to WA

[Big Animal]

C'mon people, thread is slowing. We only have 2 more days to pass 200 pages

 

[apparentlydead]

Under the law you are allowed to better yourself and if that right is withdrawn its restraint of trade and you can contest your contract.You wouldn't think the AFL would take the chance of a player winning his case.As Taylor said it would be very messy indeed.

If it's not Cam, someone will eventually challenge the validity of AFL/sporting contracts and the whole dynamic of sport will change for the better.

Contracts are only in force now as some sort of nod to the past loyalty of players who, in gentler times where lawyers were frowned upon, would take a shake of a hand and shed blood for the team in the name of honour and mateship.

Those days are long gone.

Footy players today reflect Gen Y'ers attitudes to life. They want it now and they want it all.

(I pass no comment on that, cos that is for a whole other thread).

 

[Demons09]

Work with a close relative of Cam he said that his heart is set on playing for Freo, I asked him what the chances of Freo getting him and he told me he honestly doesn't know.

Apparently Freo did offer this years and next years 1st rounder obviously before the HB trade.

He also said the problem is that GWS rate him very highly I hope Freo can get the kid home.

 

[Redgum]

Black in my opinion is a complete waste of time and doomed for a huge failure the same as Jack Anthony. Just watch this space if we get him, he appears to be barely a WAFL player.
There has to be better options out there than Black, I would entertain Casboult.

 

[estibador]

C'mon people, thread is slowing. We only have 2 more days to pass 200 pages

We've still got 6 months to whinge about getting him though. We could push 2000.

 

[yoong]

The Blues are going to extract 4 players from GWS. Why are they allowed to go? 2 of them are much higher picks than McCarthy was. Boggles the mind.

I'm not following GWS that closely. But i understand that they are experiencing some salary cap pressure. Hence they cannot afford to give Treloar what he wants and let him go.

Cam's contract is probably unders for what he is worth (they extended when he has not played a game of AFL). He is good value to keep around (low pay, good potential). Add to that we are unwilling to do a ridiculous offer like the doggies.

 

[estibador]

GSW looking to trade Sumner, Lamb, Phillips and Plowman to Carlton for 20 and 21.

Great, so they'll have the two picks directly before ours to take more KPF's they don't need and then refuse to ever trade them.

 

[Bicco]

Great, so they'll have the two picks directly before ours to take more KPF's they don't need and then refuse to ever trade them.

As if that's ever happened before.

 

[balthazarthedonk]

The AFL are obliged to say that.Spin ,spin ,spin. I f a player is offered a better contract and not allowed to pursue that contract to better himself its restraint of trade.Open and shut case you would think.

Not really. A contract is a contract. Yes

Under the law you are allowed to better yourself and if that right is withdrawn its restraint of trade and you can contest your contract.You wouldn't think the AFL would take the chance of a player winning his case.As Taylor said it would be very messy indeed.

It is perfectly lawful to restrain trade. The courts only step in when the restraint is excessive (for example, they might look at whether you have been adequately compensated for the restraint and whether it is commensurate with your position etc). And a contract is a contract. Just because courts rarely if ever order specific performance, e.g. forcing an employee to stick with an employer if the relationship has broken down irrevocably, does not mean that the law allows breaches to go unpunished, usually in payment of damages. It is also actionable to coerce someone else to breach a contract.

Anyway, the kid will stay. No other club would pick him up in these circumstances because they'd be just giving the green light to their competitors to steal their own players when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[Dirty_banchez]

Black in my opinion is a complete waste of time and doomed for a huge failure the same as Jack Anthony. Just watch this space if we get him, he appears to be barely a WAFL player.
There has to be better options out there than Black, I would entertain Casboult.

If we can get black for a 3rd rounder then I don't mind the trade, but if they want pick 22 then no way.

 

[apparentlydead]

Not really. A contract is a contract. Yes


It is perfectly lawful to restrain trade. The courts only step in when the restraint is excessive (for example, they might look at whether you have been adequately compensated for the restraint and whether it is commensurate with your position etc). And a contract is a contract. Just because courts rarely if ever order specific performance, e.g. forcing an employee to stick with an employer if the relationship has broken down irrevocably, does not mean that the law allows breaches to go unpunished, usually in payment of damages. It is also actionable to coerce someone else to breach a contract.

Anyway, the kid will stay. No other club would pick him up in these circumstances because they'd be just giving the green light to their competitors to steal their own players when the shoe is on the other foot.

I'm smelling lawyer. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Surely sport is a different dynamic, with players having a limited earning capacity due to physical restraints and injury?

I feel certain that a smart silk, with the ammunition of restraint of trade, coupled with potential mental stress/illness issues along with what I mentioned above could prosecute a pretty compelling case.

 

[Mr Peabody]

Footy players today reflect Gen Y'ers attitudes to life. They want it now and they want it all.

I don't know you from a bar of soap, but I couldn't help but notice the celebrations of your return so I thought it only fitting that I bake you a cake.

 

[balthazarthedonk]

I'm smelling lawyer. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Surely sport is a different dynamic, with players having a limited earning capacity due to physical restraints and injury?

I feel certain that a smart silk, with the ammunition of restraint of trade, coupled with potential mental stress/illness issues along with what I mentioned above could prosecute a pretty compelling case.

It's a fairly arcane area and thankfully I don't practise in it.

A lot of the points made here seem about right to me http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/10/30/the-afl-and-restraint-of-trade/
Of course, there is now that abortion of a piece of legislation the Competition and Consumer Act so hey someone might as well see if things are different under its terms

 

[Dirty_banchez]

I'm smelling lawyer. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Surely sport is a different dynamic, with players having a limited earning capacity due to physical restraints and injury?

I feel certain that a smart silk, with the ammunition of restraint of trade, coupled with potential mental stress/illness issues along with what I mentioned above could prosecute a pretty compelling case.

It's been a while since I acquainted myself with contract law, but no there is no distinction. A contract is a contract, and Mr McCarthy has just learned an important lesson: When you sign a contract, the law expects you to uphold your end of the bargain. The law might not like restraint of trade, but that does not mean it is expressly prohibited.

 

[apparentlydead]

I don't know you from a bar of soap, but I couldn't help but notice the celebrations of your return so I thought it only fitting that I bake you a cake.

View attachment 186276

Thanks matey, but I don't like cake so I gave it to ep2006

 

[dimesdimesdimes]

There has to be better options out there than Black, I would entertain Casboult.

I back our staff to know Black is no good, they wouldve watched the footage of him this season and wiped him off the shortlist surely
Casboult maybe, only if we get him dirt cheap - otherwise lets develop Tabs, Apeness, Crozier and draft talls
then go after Hogan and McCarthy in the future. How good would this look

HF: Crozier McCarthy Walters
FF: Ballas Hogan Tabener

 

[NicoNicoNico]

Not really. A contract is a contract. Yes


It is perfectly lawful to restrain trade. The courts only step in when the restraint is excessive (for example, they might look at whether you have been adequately compensated for the restraint and whether it is commensurate with your position etc). And a contract is a contract. Just because courts rarely if ever order specific performance, e.g. forcing an employee to stick with an employer if the relationship has broken down irrevocably, does not mean that the law allows breaches to go unpunished, usually in payment of damages. It is also actionable to coerce someone else to breach a contract.

Anyway, the kid will stay. No other club would pick him up in these circumstances because they'd be just giving the green light to their competitors to steal their own players when the shoe is on the other foot.

This isn't quite right. This is one of the few exceptions to the rule that "a contract is a contract".

The starting point for the Court is that any restraints of trade is void and unenforceable. The party wanting to enforce the restraint must, to reverse the position, to show that it has a legitimate interest in enforcing the restraint, and that the terms of the restraint go no further than is necessary to achieve that legitimate purpose.

This probably isn't the forum for debating whether a Court would find that a restraint on an AFL player would be enforceable. Suffice it to say there is a reasonable prospect that a Court would enforce the restraint. That being the case, the question becomes "what consequences would flow"?

In this case the risk to McCarthy is not an order to pay damages (they would be hard to calculate, even if some actual loss could be shown), or an order for specific performance (I.e. that he play for GWS) (you rightly point out that the courts are highly unlikely to compel an employee to work).

Rather, the risk is an injunction that will prevent him, for the term of his contract, for playing for a competitor. It is that potential exposure that sees AFL players honour their contracts.

 

[picko]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much skin there apparentlydead

 

[apparentlydead]

It's been a while since I acquainted myself with contract law, but no there is no distinction. A contract is a contract, and Mr McCarthy has just learned an important lesson: When you sign a contract, the law expects you to uphold your end of the bargain. The law might not like restraint of trade, but that does not mean it is expressly prohibited.

The law is meant to be an evolving beast, lest we would have no need for the good folk in wigs and gowns.

It's a fairly arcane area and thankfully I don't practise in it.

A lot of the points made here seem about right to me http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/10/30/the-afl-and-restraint-of-trade/
Of course, there is now that abortion of a piece of legislation the Competition and Consumer Act so hey someone might as well see if things are different under its terms

Let it be so.

 

[Moist Biscuit]

FB: Bugg, Hombsch, Frost,
HB:Hampton, Jaksch,Plowman
C: Tyson, Adams, O'rourke
HF:Townsend, Bruce, Sumner
FF:Lamb, Boyd, Edwards
1st-Giles, Miles, Treloar
Int-Phillips, Tunbridge, Whiley, Darley
GWS go home best 22. A few spuds but there are plenty of high picks. Laughable how much of a feeder club they are. McCarthy, Shiel and Tomlinson will all join them over the next few years.

 

[MadDocker]

HF: Crozier McCarthy Walters
FF: Ballas Hogan Tabener

May as well chuck Jesus, Ablett Snr & Plugger in there while you're at it.

Would look great but there is more chance of me sleeping with Miranda Kerr than the Dockers playing with that forward line.

Happy to be wrong on both counts...

 

[dimesdimesdimes]

May as well chuck Jesus, Ablett Snr & Plugger in there while you're at it.

Would look great but there is more chance of me sleeping with Miranda Kerr than the Dockers playing with that forward line.

Happy to be wrong on both counts...

whatt ? very very good chance i wouldve thought
Cam will end up at freo this trade period or at the end of his contract, you think he will forgive GWS for treating him like this ?
And Hogan has declined to extend his contract and rumours swirling around that he dislikes Goodwin

 

[MadDocker]

I'm going to start hitting the gym again tonight just in case. See you soon Miranda.

 

[apparentlydead]

FB: Bugg, Hombsch, Frost,
HB:Hampton, Jaksch,Plowman
C: Tyson, Adams, O'rourke
HF:Townsend, Bruce, Sumner
FF:Lamb, Boyd, Edwards
1st-Giles, Miles, Treloar
Int-Phillips, Tunbridge, Whiley, Darley
GWS go home best 22. A few spuds but there are plenty of high picks. Laughable how much of a feeder club they are. McCarthy, Shiel and Tomlinson will all join them over the next few years.

They are the nursery that keeps on giving.

Except to us.

 

[balthazarthedonk]

This isn't quite right. This is one of the few exceptions to the rule that "a contract is a contract".

In this case the risk to McCarthy is not an order to pay damages (they would be hard to calculate, even if some actual loss could be shown), or an order for specific performance (I.e. that he play for GWS) (you rightly point out that the courts are highly unlikely to compel an employee to work).

Rather, the risk is an injunction that will prevent him, for the term of his contract, for playing for a competitor. It is that potential exposure that sees AFL players honour their contracts.[/QUOTE]

Damages, because a court needs to satisfy itself that damages are insufficient before using its discretion to award an injunction. I'd bet any money they'd find a way to calculate them - they can be very creative - rather than take a 20 year old kid's livelihood from him . Reality is, there things rarely get that far anyway