Steve Turner Stays At The Storm!!!!!

[littleduck]

If I was Steve Turner, first thing I would do is sack my manager. What sort of peanut goes behind his client's back to the NRL?

Second thing is I would tell the Titans that I would play bush footy for a year rather than play for them. In the NRL this is very acceptable (ie Jamie Lyons) and Turner would have no problem being picked up by a club the following year.

The Storm have to go in all guns blazing and taking the joke of an organisation that is the NRL to the cleaners if it backs the Titans. The NRL have a very marketable product, however they manage to stuff up at every possible opportunity. It is amateur hour in comparison to the other football codes when it comes to administration. If Turner is not allowed to remain with the Storm, when the Storm have done everything correctly and legally, I will send my membership to the NRL with a letter stating that neither I nor any of my family will pay another cent for an NRL game ever again.

What did the NRL do wrong??

There is evidence indicatnig that Steve Turner entered into a legally binding contract with the Gold Coast Titans back in June. It's that simple. End of story.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

He'll play at the Titans but the Storm had nothing to lose by trying it on.

 

[Philhawk]

This sucks ...

The Storm broke no NRL rules by signing him, but I just don't see the point when the NRL can change its rules to benefit itself ...

 

[Lidge]

What did the NRL do wrong??

There is evidence indicatnig that Steve Turner entered into a legally binding contract with the Gold Coast Titans back in June. It's that simple. End of story.

IF Turner has signed anything - then we may have a legally binding contract. Hand shakes & verbals aren't binding.

Curious to see what this evidence is that you speak of (the way things are panning out - probably something signed by Turner's manager, but not the player himself).

 

[Calcium Man]

If I was Steve Turner, first thing I would do is sack my manager. What sort of peanut goes behind his client's back to the NRL?

Just goes to prove that this guy has his own needs ahead of his clients. I can understand him wanting steve in the Gold Coast, far more marketable and therefore more cash, but not at the expense of doing what is right by steve. Guy must be a total ****wit. Just proves what akermanis said that all managers are leachers.

 

[DBAH0]

IF Turner has signed anything - then we may have a legally binding contract. Hand shakes & verbals aren't binding.

Curious to see what this evidence is that you speak of (the way things are panning out - probably something signed by Turner's manager, but not the player himself).

Yep that's the main issue here.

Even if Turner AGREED to play with Gold Coast, if he didn't sign a legally binding contract with them, he shouldn't have to play for them next season.

The Storm might as well take em to court and argue "What a legally binding contract is" if the NRL won't back them on this.

 

[Catman]

There is evidence indicatnig that Steve Turner entered into a legally binding contract with the Gold Coast Titans back in June. It's that simple. End of story.

Then where is it?

Why would Steve say he's never signed anything and why would the Storm offer him a contract if he's already signed an agreement of sorts with the Gold Coast?

But all I hear from the GC is a lot of nothing, no comments of "We've got proof he signed a letter of intent" etc. If he signed something, then prove it. It is that simple.

 

[littleduck]

This sucks ...

The Storm broke no NRL rules by signing him...

Yes, they did.

... but I just don't see the point when the NRL can change its rules to benefit itself ...

the NRL didnt do anything.

 

[littleduck]

IF Turner has signed anything - then we may have a legally binding contract. Hand shakes & verbals aren't binding.

Yes, they are.

Generally speaking, written and verbal agreements have the same force - a binding contract.

Curious to see what this evidence is that you speak of (the way things are panning out - probably something signed by Turner's manager, but not the player himself).

The Titans have provided their records to the NRL, who agreed that a contract existed.

 

[littleduck]

Then where is it?

Why would Steve say he's never signed anything and why would the Storm offer him a contract if he's already signed an agreement of sorts with the Gold Coast?

But all I hear from the GC is a lot of nothing, no comments of "We've got proof he signed a letter of intent" etc. If he signed something, then prove it. It is that simple.

Entering contracts does not revolve around signing a piece of paper. Verbal agreements have the same force.

 

[littleduck]

Yep that's the main issue here.

Even if Turner AGREED to play with Gold Coast, if he didn't sign a legally binding contract with them, he shouldn't have to play for them next season.

The Storm might as well take em to court and argue "What a legally binding contract is" if the NRL won't back them on this.

Binding agreements can be wholly oral, wholly written, or a combination of both. In this case, it's a combination of both.

 

[DBAH0]

Binding agreements can be wholly oral, wholly written, or a combination of both. In this case, it's a combination of both.

It can be Oral, but it can also be harder to prove what was exactly agreed to, or even that a contract that Turner never actually signed as well.

Just because Steve Turner and his manager may have said "Ok we'll play for Gold Coast for the next 3 years", and then not sign a written contract stating that Turner has signed on for 3 years, won't make it legally binding IMHO.

It'll probably end up in the courts I would imagine. But in any case, it can't really be good for the image of the Titans when it comes to signing players in the future. I doubt they'll be making this mistake again.

 

[year of the roo]

Quite amazing how much bollocks littleduck has excreted in this thread. No idea at all.

 

[littleduck]

It can be Oral, but it can also be harder to prove what was exactly agreed to...

True

... or even that a contract that Turner never actually signed as well.

As I said, you don't need to sign a piece of paper to enter a legally binding agreement.

Just because Steve Turner and his manager may have said "Ok we'll play for Gold Coast for the next 3 years", and then not sign a written contract stating that Turner has signed on for 3 years, won't make it legally binding IMHO.

It'll probably end up in the courts I would imagine. But in any case, it can't really be good for the image of the Titans when it comes to signing players in the future. I doubt they'll be making this mistake again.

The Titans have supplied their material to NRL CEO David Gallop who agrees there was a clear agreement back in June between Turner and the Titans and therefore the NRL will be registering Turner as a Titans player. The evidence before the NRL is overwhelmingly in favour of a partly oral, partly written contract between the Titans Football Club and Steve Turner.

As a club, you can't have players making binding commitment and then backing out after the club has relied on your commitment in its preparation for the following year in going after or not going after other players.

 

[littleduck]

Quite amazing how much bollocks littleduck has excreted in this thread. No idea at all.

Really...

 

[POBT]

Quite amazing how much bollocks littleduck has excreted in this thread. No idea at all.

Like the result or not but an oral agreement is generally binding on the parties provided the terms of the agreement are sufficiently certain. It appears that the Titans have produced a whole heap of material that indicates the terms of the agreement.

Interestingly, it seems Turner approached the Titans for a release from the "arrangement" a month ago and was denied. So, at some stage, Turner thought that he was bound to play for the Titans.

Notwithstanding all of that, if I were Michael Searle I would let him stay in Melbourne. No-one wins if he goes to the Titans. Insist on some compensation for the costs incurred (eg flights, accommodation etc) but at the end of the day there's no point having a player on the list who has no desire to play for you.

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

Really...

little duck i hire people at my work all the time, i can count many a time when a prospective employee has 'verbally' agreed with me to leave his current employ (usually a competitor) only to then be talked into staying at his current employer when he has gone to resign ....

Not pleasant, but nothing i can do about it ...

Id love to see a judge force Turner to move his family to the Gold Coast and play against his wishes , when he hasnt signed anything, in fact by the NRL denying him the opportunity to stay at the club he wants, it is a clear restraint of trade. Thats why the draft was scrapped by the NRL.

In short you cant force him to play with the Titans regardless of what the NRL want you to believe.

If i was Turner though the first thing i would do is sack his manager

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

little duck i hire people at my work all the time, i can count many a time when a prospective employee has 'verbally' agreed with me to leave his current employ (usually a competitor) only to then be talked into staying at his current employer when he has gone to resign ....

Not pleasant, but nothing i can do about it ...

Id love to see a judge force Turner to move his family to the Gold Coast and play against his wishes , when he hasnt signed anything, in fact by the NRL denying him the opportunity to stay at the club he wants, it is a clear restraint of trade. Thats why the draft was scrapped by the NRL.

In short you cant force him to play with the Titans regardless of what the NRL want you to believe.

If i was Turner though the first thing i would do is sack his manager

There is no restraint of trade here(at least yet).

Would you be saying the same thing if the boot was on the other foot i.e. the Titans had gone ahead and signed another player and then told Turner "sorry, we've changed our mind"? I doubt it.

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

There is no restraint of trade here(at least yet).

Would you be saying the same thing if the boot was on the other foot i.e. the Titans had gone ahead and signed another player and then told Turner "sorry, we've changed our mind"? I doubt it.

in fact it happened with storm and fui fui moimoi

it happens, people change there minds, of course i wouldnt be happy, but thats how i see it

there was also a report in today hun, forgotten the dudes name, A warrior player did the same thing a few years back, changed his mind about going to the warriors, took his case to court and won

 

[POBT]

little duck i hire people at my work all the time, i can count many a time when a prospective employee has 'verbally' agreed with me to leave his current employ (usually a competitor) only to then be talked into staying at his current employer when he has gone to resign ....

Not pleasant, but nothing i can do about it ...

Id love to see a judge force Turner to move his family to the Gold Coast and play against his wishes , when he hasnt signed anything, in fact by the NRL denying him the opportunity to stay at the club he wants, it is a clear restraint of trade. Thats why the draft was scrapped by the NRL.

In short you cant force him to play with the Titans regardless of what the NRL want you to believe.

If i was Turner though the first thing i would do is sack his manager

Bubbalouis, if you had received a verbal commitment from a prospective employee who then reneged on it, I believe that you do have legal recourse against the person. The fact that you don't exercise your legal rights is because there is no point "forcing" someone to work for you - engenders poor spirit and you are almost guaranteed poor productivity. They are practical reasons why you wouldn't force someone to abide by their oral commitment but that doesn't change the legal position that an oral commitment is just as enforceable as a written commitment provided all of the elements of a contract are present.

As far as the restraint of trade goes, it is clearly not one. Turner had the opportunity to play with whichever club wanted him - he chose the Titans. Therefore he had exercised his freedom to choose his place of employment. A restraint of trade would mean that he wasn't allowed to commit to the Titans in the first place. Being bound to comply with lawful contractual obligations is not a restraint of trade - it is a basic tenet of law.

There's two arguments here. What the Titans legally can do and what the Titans should do. If a verbal contract exists, the Titans have legal rights.

Put the shoe on the other foot. The Titans, after having orally committed to Steve Turner and both parties taking steps which evidence that commitment, suddenly turns around and renege because Lote Tuquiri has agreed to sign with them. The Players' Association and everyone else would be up in arms that the Titans did not honour the oral agreement - rightfully so.

I'm not on either side. The Titans were stupid not to contract Turner immediately to remove all doubt about the situation. Now that he has expressed that he doesn't want to play for them, I would swallow my pride and let him walk. Turner is a good player with promise to be an outstanding player. But he is not going to prove the difference between the Titans' success or failure. If he goes there with a bad attitude though, it could affect the whole team. I also don't think the Storm have done anything wrong. I suspect that Turner has not been completely truthful with them and so Melbourne are entitled to try and contract him. At the end of the day though, Melbourne are losing a bloke that I suspect 2 months ago was superfluous to their needs. Now he is playing good footy he becomes a more valuable commodity for them and worth fighting for. It is interesting that only now has Melbourne enquired after his services.

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

Bubbalouis, if you had received a verbal commitment from a prospective employee who then reneged on it, I believe that you do have legal recourse against the person. The fact that you don't exercise your legal rights is because there is no point "forcing" someone to work for you - engenders poor spirit and you are almost guaranteed poor productivity. They are practical reasons why you wouldn't force someone to abide by their oral commitment but that doesn't change the legal position that an oral commitment is just as enforceable as a written commitment provided all of the elements of a contract are present.

As far as the restraint of trade goes, it is clearly not one. Turner had the opportunity to play with whichever club wanted him - he chose the Titans. Therefore he had exercised his freedom to choose his place of employment. A restraint of trade would mean that he wasn't allowed to commit to the Titans in the first place. Being bound to comply with lawful contractual obligations is not a restraint of trade - it is a basic tenet of law.

There's two arguments here. What the Titans legally can do and what the Titans should do. If a verbal contract exists, the Titans have legal rights.

Put the shoe on the other foot. The Titans, after having orally committed to Steve Turner and both parties taking steps which evidence that commitment, suddenly turns around and renege because Lote Tuquiri has agreed to sign with them. The Players' Association and everyone else would be up in arms that the Titans did not honour the oral agreement - rightfully so.

I'm not on either side. The Titans were stupid not to contract Turner immediately to remove all doubt about the situation. Now that he has expressed that he doesn't want to play for them, I would swallow my pride and let him walk. Turner is a good player with promise to be an outstanding player. But he is not going to prove the difference between the Titans' success or failure. If he goes there with a bad attitude though, it could affect the whole team. I also don't think the Storm have done anything wrong. I suspect that Turner has not been completely truthful with them and so Melbourne are entitled to try and contract him. At the end of the day though, Melbourne are losing a bloke that I suspect 2 months ago was superfluous to their needs. Now he is playing good footy he becomes a more valuable commodity for them and worth fighting for. It is interesting that only now has Melbourne enquired after his services.

good points , but


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20165607-14823,00.html


how did wiki when his case in court then?

 

[littleduck]

What the Melbourne Storm did was wrong and they are the only mob who look bad from all this. Steve Turner had a changed of mind - fine - but the Melbourne Storm told him to sign a further contract with them despite having been told by the Gold Coast Titans that he had a binding agreement with their club. The Gold Coast Titans must take a stand against such tactics.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

You will find examples either way. All that means is this case has to be decided on the facts specific to it.

As I said previously my view is the Titans appear to be in the best position but I dont blame the Storm for having a go at keeping him.

 

[sainter]

The Gold Coast Titans must take a stand against such tactics.

By making the people who didn't offer Turner a contract to sign accountable?

How unprofessional.

 

[POBT]

good points , but


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20165607-14823,00.html


how did wiki when his case in court then?

My recollection is that there were allegations of pre-contract misrepresentations as well as duress and inconsistent evidence given by Warriors management about the contractual status. Therefore, the original contract was either not lawful or never formally existed. Just what I recall though so happy to be corrected.

The Wiki saga does demonstrate how badly this whole thing could go if the parties don't negotiate a compromise.