Hird being paid while suspended?

[campbell]

Bombers have to respond to a few simple questions (truth preferred) and then they will get their sanctions lifted

pretty basic isnt it.

governing bodies don't like silence when they send letters requesting urgent information.
let alone filtering of information.never a good look for your integrity imo.

 

[Carlo]

Couldn't be Little and Hird trying to circumvent the agreement now could it, has to be all the AFL's fault

You're kidding right?? Why have the AFL/Demetriou who was/were vehement in their responses when the story first broke about Hird not being payed gone all quiet??

They've royally screwed up here with their "Verbal Agreement"!

 

[Underdog]

Haven't the AFL admitted there is no written agreement saying he can't be paid? People keep saying that just wondering of anyone can confirm.

The AFL has confirmed there is nothing written in the "Terms of the Deed" for James Hird's 12-month suspension that specifically states the coach-in-exile cannot be paid by Essendon during the period of his ban.
However, the league insists it clearly outlined the terms in conversations with Bombers officials after the public release of the penalties, and one of the conditions – given verbally – was that Hird could not be paid by the club.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-no-pay-for-james-hird-was-a-verbal-guarantee-20131205-2ysyl.html#ixzz2nEL58X68​

I'd suggest that is still binding.

 

[boncer34]

I'd suggest that is still binding.

Thanks for that but that just strikes me weird mate.

They made sure to include the "no payment" clause in dishing out Adelaides penalties but then for Essendon's they decide to not bother including it on paper and just go with a verbal one?

Its possible. Just weird.

 

[Boxhead_31]

You're kidding right?? Why have the AFL/Demetriou who was/were vehement in their responses when the story first broke about Hird not being payed gone all quiet??

They've royally screwed up here with their "Verbal Agreement"?

Maybe because they are waiting for a reply to their two requests for a please explain from EFC on the matter?

 

[IanW]

You're kidding right?? Why have the AFL/Demetriou who was/were vehement in their responses when the story first broke about Hird not being payed gone all quiet??

They've royally screwed up here with their "Verbal Agreement"?

No, not really.

Essendon either go back to the deal, or cope without a distribution that has Hird's presumed wage deducted from it.

 

[morgoth]

So the AFL reduce the bombers distribution by a million for whatever reason they choose. The fact it is Hirds pay is purely coincidental. End result Essendon lose.

You cant win when you fight city hall.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Well Tania just ****** Essendon over today.

Doubt it, She's clever than you think.

 

[Underdog]

They've royally screwed up here with their "Verbal Agreement"!

How so?

An oral agreement doesn't necessarily make it any less binding than a written agreement.

 

[Juddernaut08]

Strange state of affairs. Don't see what is stopping Essendon from paying Hird after the ban is over. I.e. paying him $1mil extra over 5 years.

 

[The Bomb]

I'd suggest that is still binding.

No it's not, written and signed documentation is legal binding, which shows both parties agreed to the terms and no one is adding or taking from them.

 

[Argy]

How so?

An oral agreement doesn't necessarily make it any less binding than a written agreement.

An oral agreement ain't worth the paper it's written on.

 

[IanW]

Strange state of affairs. Don't see what is stopping Essendon from paying Hird after the ban is over. I.e. paying him $1mil extra over 5 years.

Hird is facing a four-year suspension for possessing drugs banned for players, and for aiding and abetting the doping program. During that four years, he cannot be paid by the club ... so if he's going to get money off Essendon, he needs to get it now.

 

[Argy]

No it's not, written and signed documentation is legal binding, which shows both parties agreed to the terms and no one is adding or taking from them.

Written agreements ARE binding. The problem is proving what was agreed.

 

[Carlo]

No, not really.

Essendon either go back to the deal, or cope without a distribution that has Hird's presumed wage deducted from it.

And if the deal doesn't have any terminology that stops us paying Hird??

It was not in the Agreement, We are complying with the deal.

 

[IanW]

And if the deal doesn't have any terminology that stops us paying Hird??

It was not in the Agreement, We are complying with the deal.

Then you're picking option B.

If you like, you could try and get the other clubs to vote and disallow the decision of the AFL Commission to reduce Essendon's distribution.

 

[boncer34]

Written agreements ARE binding. The problem is proving what was agreed.

I presume you meant oral?

True they are binding. IF both parties agreed that it was said, otherwise it becomes a he said/she said type of argument where the courts (if it goes that far) will rely on what can be proven in writing. And the AFL have admitted it isn't in writing.

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

So when are Essendon going to threaten Tania with a lawsuit?

 

[Furn2]

Wish I could cop a 12 mth suspension with pay.

 

[Axcellence]

An oral agreement ain't worth the paper it's written on.

Fail...at year 11 law

Oral agreements are binding as long as there was an acceptance ...
And it can be a verbal acceptance

 

[campbell]

just messy.i feel for the fans of the club.

 

[Doss]

Please desist with playing the man, swear filter evasion and generic Bay 13 type posting.

This isn't the Bay, afterall.

 

[Shane Mead]

Everything I have said has been held true...the AFL is a joke of a sporting organization.

They make a deal where one person and club think one thing and the league thinks another. Shouldn't this have been ironed out in that deal?

There was only ever 1 fair solution, the entire debacle should have been settled in a COURT OF LAW! The AFL is a big fish in a small pond playing by their own rules made up as they go.

The reality is the AFL were fine with Hird being paid as long as they could avoid court. They didn't anticipate the story coming out, it did and now the AFL is in damage control with a total disregard for the deal they made.

I would rather Essendon fight this and be kicked out of the competition than for the club to just get bitch slapped again, taking it like the other 17 bitches. Die on your feet or live on your knees...I take the former.

 

[TerryWallet]

Hird is facing a four-year suspension for possessing drugs banned for players, and for aiding and abetting the doping program. During that four years, he cannot be paid by the club ... so if he's going to get money off Essendon, he needs to get it now.

People who don't/won't understand why the Hird's would be doing this now, seemingly to the detriment of EFC and AFL, need to understand what Ian just wrote.

Time is limited for Jimmy Hird.

 

[I Rock]

Wish I could cop a 12 mth suspension with pay.

Take a chance dope up your workmate's with unknown substances and see how it turns out.