Sections 52 and 53

[Bloodstained Angel]

To Saint Kilda and the Western Bulldogs

Have a look at the Trade Practices Act (1974. Section 52(1) says

A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

and Section 53(c) says

A corporation shall not ... (c) represent that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, PEFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS, accessories, uses or benefits they do not have;

now this sounds exactly like the huge whoppers the AFL told these clubs about how, why and when they were supposed to make squillions of dollars out of Colonial Stadium.

Think you guys have a case here - go get 'em !!!!!

 

[kevin sooky]

Hey BSA, dont forget the Fair Trading Act (VIC) 1978 (I think) and the basic contractual priciples of misrepresentation.

What about s.81 of the Crimes Act - obtaining a financial advantage by deception?

Its been two months by the way. You have still been unable to prove South Melbourne and Sydney are the same legal entity.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Thanks for bringing that one up again Kevin

As I said I have made some enquiries and done a little research - but unfortunately have come up empty-handed.

One thing I did find out was that the legal identity of the Swans organisation changed from a Club to a private company in 1985 when Edelstein bought the club lock stock and barrel from the AFL.

So perhaps you are correct - the organisation certainly changed in a very profound way in 1985. But the situation then changes when the club was returned from private ownership back to the members and board set-up.

So are they the same club ? - Well, the answer is NO - and also YES. There appears to be little doubt that the organisation actually went through about THREE different legal personalities from 1985-1992 and the Business name was always "Sydney Australian Football Club"

This most certainly had nothing to do with the South Melbourne name - in that you are quite correct and I accept that.

BUT - back in the real world away from ACN's, Incorporated Companies and Business names - to all intents and purposes they ARE the same club.

I know I haven't been able to convince you, I'm sure I probably would never have convinced you. Thats fine by me Kev you can have the last word.

After two months of at times pretty complicated research I'm a bit fed up with this now, you can refer to the Swans as a different club if you like, I don't think I'm all that interested in trying to convince you otherwise anymore.

P.S. Please don't gloat too much - its a turn off

[This message has been edited by Bloodstained Angel (edited 14 June 2000).]

 

[kevin sooky]

BSA

Silent in victory as you are gracious in defeat.

Topic closed.

Now tell me. are you any good at Torts?

 

[Arch]

angel,
and which file number did we charge the BN searches to ?????

general office ????

lol

A.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Of course !

 

[kevin sooky]

BSA

What are your views on the Unholy Trinity of the 19thC?

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

You got me there mate - dunno what is it ?

 

[kevin sooky]

BSA, You dont recall the Legal History of Torts....You imposter!!!!!

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Me an imposter ?

Hey Kev I'm not a lawyer, have never said I'm a lawyer or pretended to be a lawyer. In fact posing as a lawyer is a crime I belive ?

I'm a Librarian who works for a law firm - I'm really excellent at finding and obtaining legal information (its my job) but don't ask me anything about the law or the history of the law as I am no wiser than you are (or considerably less wiser it seems !)

 

[servo]

Now if you want to talk about the Trade Practices Act, how the hell does the Draft fit into that and the restraint of trade?

 

[Pessimistic]

Tha AFL has many things which could be challenged under competition policy but as Nobody can play Australian football in another 'league' which has similar pay levels then they all live with it and don't challenge.

Therefore the situation (which is reasonably good) will not be challenged unless one or more or the participants becomes very unhappy (Players, Clubs, Media, Ground owners, Supporters)

Unfortunately at the moment many people are very unhappy. There seems to be very little trust. Something has to 'give' soon.

But they are frightened people. I think the only reason the present stupidity is challenged because Joseph Gutnick has (obviously) independent means and does not feel beholden to the AFL (unlike most media commentators)

Let's hope they can resolve it quickly to everyone's satisfaction (espaecially the supporters)

I don;t think anyone will be 'sacked' but a few will continue in the AFL 'in name only' and have no more influence

I for one will be glad - I might even become 'Optimistic'

 

[kevin sooky]

The draft is a restraint of trade, but the qn is whether it is a reasonable or not, if it is deemd so then it is OK. The AFL says teh fatc that players can be traded and that there are two drafts enables the restraint of trade to be reasonable. They used to have the mid-season draft when they were more scared that it wasnt reasonable but on QC advice were able to abolish that.