Its Time For Trigg To Resign.

rocket18

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Posts
8,260
Likes
13,139
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
The EXERS
I work in big business I do big deals. Some agreements are in verbal agreements which hold as much legal sway as written

If I could work for the AFC I would. Wouldn't you?
Mate with your attitude of not requiring anything in writing you will be a shoe in next time a job comes up (and we don't have anyone left to promote internally).

We love people who do business with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge.:D
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

WeeBlake

All Australian
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
873
Likes
838
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Adelaide
You don't need anything in writing at all to have a proper, legally enforceable contract. But if it is not in writing, you invite argument over what the terms of the contract are.
 

Cap

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Posts
29,497
Likes
13,034
Location
*cough*
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
I actually don't think you know what you're talking about, despite the numerous appeals to your authority.

I would like you to support your claims regarding courts 'supporting fax' and 'overturning emails'. The distinction between the two would appear spurious at best. Both are simply a method of exchanging documents.

It is usual practice in many areas of litigation that communications are exchanged by emails, including those from Courts themselves, or containing formal documents. In some jurisdictions you can now instigate proceedings and lodge documents via email.
yes You can but a level predence exists.

Signed documents are obviuosly the most prefected and has been tested in the courts, verbal contacts have too hence they hold weight.

Emails haven't.

So in the case of this guernsey, the Crows had a verbal contract with Whicker, which he has admitted. The absence of a written contract is irrelevant to us because it has been established a verbal one existed.

My point about emails is merely that I have confidence that a legal contract exists in verbal form because I know it had been tested. Emails haven't as far as a I know.

As I said I don't really care what you think of me.
 

Cap

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Posts
29,497
Likes
13,034
Location
*cough*
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
Mate with your attitude of not requiring anything in writing you will be a shoe in next time a job comes up (and we don't have anyone left to promote internally).

We love people who do business with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge.:D
As I said, I don't in the normal course of business.

I just know People still do.
 

Cap

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Posts
29,497
Likes
13,034
Location
*cough*
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
& yet afc brought in high priced lawyers who surely would have fought the emails were inadmissible if your claims are correct ;)
Again my point is that they haven't been tested.

I can only assume that if they were the court wouldnt have a problem. In the View of the AFC lawyers

Or they realised the AFL was going to do what the AFL was going to do.

Edit. Wasn't that more about correspondence rather that contracts?
 

Southerntakeover

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Posts
26,584
Likes
14,261
Location
At vB temple...
AFL Club
Adelaide
yes You can but a level predence exists.

Signed documents are obviuosly the most prefected and has been tested in the courts, verbal contacts have too hence they hold weight.

Emails haven't.

So in the case of this guernsey, the Crows had a verbal contract with Whicker, which he has admitted. The absence of a written contract is irrelevant to us because it has been established a verbal one existed.

My point about emails is merely that I have confidence that a legal contract exists in verbal form because I know it had been tested. Emails haven't as far as a I know.

As I said I don't really care what you think of me.
You're the only person who keeps trying to turn this into a discussion about you. It's not a matter of what I think of you. I don't think of you. I don't care about your job, your experience, or whether you like long walks on the beach. I'd be happier leaving them out of the discussion.

The argument that emails have never been used as evidence, or accepted as best evidence by a court is wrong. It has no basis in reality. Heck, I can point you in the direction of cases where Tribunals have relied upon Facebook posts as best evidence. The medium of communicating acceptance of a contract is not particularly important in terms of whether the contract is valid.

The suggestion that it is preferable to rely upon the recollection of a verbal contract, rather than use email is bizarre. You are right in that if both parties agree that a contract existed, and regarding what the terms of the contract were, it would not be necessary to lead evidence regarding these points. That does not change best practice though, which is to create a contemporaneous record of the contract, which can be relied upon in future should disagreements arise regarding either the existence, or terms of the contract. Relying upon the recollection of a verbal contract is a major risk for either party, as they leave themselves exposed to having the other party's evidence being preferred in a 'your word v mine' scenario.

Emails are frequently used to create such a record, as it is close to instantaneous, can be easily stored, can be produced at short notice, and can be sent to a number of recipients. The thought that these are not valid, or would be rejected purely because they're emails is baffling. A court would not accept a verbal recollection of what a contract's terms are over a contemporaneous email accepting the terms.

Having said that, I'm not suggesting that an email is the ideal form/method of executing a contract. It would be far preferable to have a document executed by both parties and witnessed, as that strengthens the evidence that can be led with respect to whether the parties agreed.
 

Southerntakeover

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Posts
26,584
Likes
14,261
Location
At vB temple...
AFL Club
Adelaide
Dollars to donuts that even if the Crows had the agreement in writing they would have agreed to the SANFL's decision after Whicker decided to reverse it.
I think you're right. I don't actually think the existence of an agreement is particularly meaningful here.

I would still prefer that we atleast try to engage with best practice though.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Cap

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Posts
29,497
Likes
13,034
Location
*cough*
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
You're the only person who keeps trying to turn this into a discussion about you. It's not a matter of what I think of you. I don't think of you. I don't care about your job, your experience, or whether you like long walks on the beach. I'd be happier leaving them out of the discussion.

The argument that emails have never been used as evidence, or accepted as best evidence by a court is wrong. It has no basis in reality. Heck, I can point you in the direction of cases where Tribunals have relied upon Facebook posts as best evidence. The medium of communicating acceptance of a contract is not particularly important in terms of whether the contract is valid.

The suggestion that it is preferable to rely upon the recollection of a verbal contract, rather than use email is bizarre. You are right in that if both parties agree that a contract existed, and regarding what the terms of the contract were, it would not be necessary to lead evidence regarding these points. That does not change best practice though, which is to create a contemporaneous record of the contract, which can be relied upon in future should disagreements arise regarding either the existence, or terms of the contract. Relying upon the recollection of a verbal contract is a major risk for either party, as they leave themselves exposed to having the other party's evidence being preferred in a 'your word v mine' scenario.

Emails are frequently used to create such a record, as it is close to instantaneous, can be easily stored, can be produced at short notice, and can be sent to a number of recipients. The thought that these are not valid, or would be rejected purely because they're emails is baffling. A court would not accept a verbal recollection of what a contract's terms are over a contemporaneous email accepting the terms.

Having said that, I'm not suggesting that an email is the ideal form/method of executing a contract. It would be far preferable to have a document executed by both parties and witnessed, as that strengthens the evidence that can be led with respect to whether the parties agreed.
I can only go on what I'm told (to do) and what I can legally rely on.

I don't think we are saying different things, just having a different conversation.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Posts
143
Likes
199
AFL Club
Adelaide
Of course it's his fault, he misread the backlash, the club didn't even ask one past player and he didn't get it in writing, nor did he tell Wicker we were going to sell it to members to name

Why the hell should the Club ask a past player? I want my club to make their own decisions - right or wrong. It has nothing to do with past SA players who have their knickers in a knot - but it's ok for 15 year old kids to run around in it in the lower leagues. FACT IS - the AFC was born out of ALL the SANFL clubs and were (and still ARE) representing SA - like it or not. Port represent a small ghetto.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Posts
143
Likes
199
AFL Club
Adelaide
Without making any personal observations, I thought Trigg (as a supposed businessman) would know instinctively that a verbal contract is not worth the paper it's written on. Especially after his last clerical error
It was approved by the AFL in writing. The SANFL are soft. They forget who is putting money in their coffers. A knee jerk reaction because a ghetto club and some so called 'Legends' whinged.
 

Elite Crow

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Posts
48,515
Likes
63,215
Location
adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Why the hell should the Club ask a past player? I want my club to make their own decisions - right or wrong. It has nothing to do with past SA players who have their knickers in a knot - but it's ok for 15 year old kids to run around in it in the lower leagues. FACT IS - the AFC was born out of ALL the SANFL clubs and were (and still ARE) representing SA - like it or not. Port represent a small ghetto.
Why should they have asked past players? It's called research. They could have then gauged the level of opposition to the proposal and avoided the embarrassing PR disaster. The club has admitted they didn't anticipate the reaction and Trigg admitted they should have spoken to ex state players.
 

Mattrox

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Posts
16,885
Likes
13,970
AFL Club
Adelaide
Why should they have asked past players? It's called research. They could have then gauged the level of opposition to the proposal and avoided the embarrassing PR disaster. The club has admitted they didn't anticipate the reaction and Trigg admitted they should have spoken to ex state players.
It's only a pr disaster because they meekly backed down. "Proud Crows demand agreement honoured" I'd have that headline in a heart beat. Bring on controversy.

"We won't let those outside the club dictate to us" attitude is what we should have displayed openly and proudly.


Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Posts
143
Likes
199
AFL Club
Adelaide
Why should they have asked past players? It's called research. They could have then gauged the level of opposition to the proposal and avoided the embarrassing PR disaster. The club has admitted they didn't anticipate the reaction and Trigg admitted they should have spoken to ex state players.
Not everyone is going to like each decision the club makes. The club should be able to wear the jumper. That's what they wanted to do. Why ask anyone other than the AFL and SANFL for permission. What we have learnt is that the SANFL is soft, and I am hoping that the Crows have something up their sleeves for the Port game or we are too.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Posts
143
Likes
199
AFL Club
Adelaide
It's only a pr disaster because they meekly backed down. "Proud Crows demand agreement honoured" I'd have that headline in a heart beat. Bring on controversy.

"We won't let those outside the club dictate to us" attitude is what we should have displayed openly and proudly.


Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk
THIS x100000
 

King Elvis

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Posts
45,616
Likes
36,183
Location
SA
AFL Club
Adelaide
Yes they have been relied on by business but that didn't mean in a court of law it cant get over turned.

I don't take email communication, I'll take a fax because it has been supportered in a court of law.

I don't need to prove my knowledge to you. I deal in this stuff daily.
I re did all of our contracts last year, variations were part of it, our legal advice was that email communication is considered written authority and could be relied on if an issue ended up in court.

Regardless, if you aren't sure, do you do nothing, or put it in writing to make sure?
 

Cap

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Posts
29,497
Likes
13,034
Location
*cough*
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
Regardless, if you aren't sure, do you do nothing, or put it in writing to make sure?
Can't really argue with that.

I know a lot of people who after having a phone conversation send emails confirming the conversation.

I only right it down and save it dated (in a system that reflects dates), because doing that can also save your arse.

That all being said, I guess you would have hoped the club learnt is lesson from last time, it obviuosly didn't think the SANFL part was important enough to have in writing.
 

cmndstab

Premium Platinum
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Posts
28,299
Likes
16,945
Location
Ingle Farm
AFL Club
Adelaide
Why should they have asked past players? It's called research. They could have then gauged the level of opposition to the proposal and avoided the embarrassing PR disaster. The club has admitted they didn't anticipate the reaction and Trigg admitted they should have spoken to ex state players.
They did do research, according to them. And in my opinion they got the decision to go ahead with it right. I honestly believe that the vast majority of SA footy pundits either liked the concept of the guernsey, or just didn't really care. What they probably underestimated was how loudly the few headline-hungry ex-players would scream, and how meekly the SANFL would roll over under the most minute amount of pressure from a tiny but vocal minority.


And I don't understand why people are making such a big deal out of not getting this in writing. The Tippett scenario was different in every conceivable sense. There we were trying to rescind an illegal clause. Here we were obtaining approval which was then publicly announced by the body that agreed to give the approval. There was no need whatsoever to obtain written approval when Whicker was going to head out and give a damn press conference about it. Having it in writing would have made literally no difference to this situation.

Should Trigg start keeping a written record of his trips to the men's room as well?


One thing this saga has highlighted for me is that, on a subliminal level, the ridiculous "clerical error" mentality has seeped into our own supporter base. People now think that the whole problem that caused Tippettgate was Trigg not having agreements in writing, rather than us agreeing to (and almost certainly initiating) illegal clauses in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Sanders

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Posts
25,451
Likes
32,869
AFL Club
Adelaide
I work in big business I do big deals. Some agreements are in verbal agreements which hold as much legal sway as written
Can you give some examples of big deals you've personally been involved in that were done verbally without any backup?

You know there is no legal precdence for email.

Word = email.
That's just not true
 
Top Bottom