Suing Hasler ?

[jbb/james]

gotta also remember a number of dogs staff were without a job without notice. I also read the dogs had to borrow substantial cash to pay out existing contracts to accomodate this. While they were paid the timing made it difficult to secure like minded employment

If greenburg has acted poorly he should be bought to task in my opinion. But they should do it quietly without the media or shut up .

 

[DSM5]

It's the principle of the thing Dan. Costs are awarded in civil matters which this is. I would think the club would have solid grounds or they wouldn't be talking the talk. The guy had 18 months to run on his coaching contract and goes and gets into bed with another club. Surely there's the rub. Spiteful and sooky? all good. The more the hate is, the stronger it makes us.
If it gets to court, I'll be there.

 

[1947]

I want to Greenturd exposed as the slime he is instead of being called the best young CEO in at the game. I want the truth out there so it ruins this pricks future employment opportunities.

Agree

If the shoe was on the other foot Halser would sue us – and he openly said so. We need to sue them end of story ..

 

[Dan]

The principle? Come on DSM5, it just makes us sound bitter. This is teh way of the professional world, people are head hunted all the time.

It wasn't ideal, but such is life. If there were contract issues etc, there are other ways to deal with it

 

[tookey]

Aren't there NRL rules which prevent clubs from enticing players to break contracts or even to talk to contracted playuers without the clubs permission so surely the NRL would have the same rules for coaches?

If the dogs sign a number of our players for next year I wonder if the posters here who say we shouldn't sue will say the same thing then.

Make no mistake hasler doesn't care about the Manly club or taking any staff or players from us.

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

In my view we need to just let it go. What sort of message does this send to the team. "Hey look we are happy with Toovey so far, but we would have preferred Hasler, and so much so that we are going to take the Bulldogs to court to get compensation for it"

Seriously, the event was horrible for all involved and it wasn't handled well by anybody really. However taking people to court over it, doesn't fix anything, it just prolongs the pain, and to what end?

Dan's 100% right about this - there's nothing to be gained from pursuing this, even if the club is in the right. If they're worried about our "tarnished brand", this will only do it further damage.
The best thing we can do is move onward and upwards with Tooves at the helm.
And speaking of damage to the "brand" (oh, how I hate that word), did anyone else see this on the Telegraph's website this morning?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/court-told-of-bagman-tax-dodge/story-e6freuzi-1226291191316

A big Sea Eagles logo next to the headline "Court Told of Bagman Tax Dodge". The story is about "the caterer for the Manly Sea Eagles NRL club" being involved in tax fraud. It has NOTHING to do with the club (and the club isn't mentioned anywhere except in the lede) but there it is: the Eagles logo next to the words "bagman" and "tax dodge".
If the club sues Des, the media spin won't be pretty.

 

[DSM5]

Didn't quite get your second point Tookey.

 

[WAMF]

The club was dudded and we need the money.
Sue his pants off.

 

[Peter C]

Aren't there NRL rules which prevent clubs from enticing players to break contracts or even to talk to contracted playuers without the clubs permission so surely the NRL would have the same rules for coaches?

If the dogs sign a number of our players for next year I wonder if the posters here who say we should sue will say the same thing then.

Make no mistake hasler doesn't care about the Manly club or taking any staff or players from us.

Enticing a player to play for you the following season is NOT enticing someone to break a contract.
The June 30th deadline does not exist anymore, so basically a player can negotiate anytime to join another club, when he goes to that club is determined by his contract, unless that contract is cancelled mutually by the club and player.
Coaches are NOT subject to any NRL rules as to when, and for how they can be signed, however under common law, they are still subject to contract laws, and if someone is colluding with the contracted person to break that contrat then that is illegal.
The Manly board has been tarnished in all of this, they have been painted as inept and totally unprofessional by all forms of media for not acceding to Haslers demands.
This in turn would have had a detrimental effect on club sponsorship, so adamages claim against all paries involved should be a consideration.

 

[Hamster Huey]

The principle? Come on DSM5, it just makes us sound bitter. This is teh way of the professional world, people are head hunted all the time.

It wasn't ideal, but such is life. If there were contract issues etc, there are other ways to deal with it

You may recall that in the commercial tv network world recently, CH10 poached a senior executive from CH7, only to find that he was unable to work with them for about a year due to his current contract stilll being in effect.

 

[WAMF]

You may recall that in the commercial tv network world recently, CH10 poached a senior executive from CH7, only to find that he was unable to work with them for about a year due to his current contract stilll being in effect.

Probably why they kept Dymock around even though he wasn't needed.

 

[Eagles Terrorist]

Let it go. Nothing to be gained.

Focus on the team, the fans, the future, not the lawyers.

What goes around comes around anyway.

 

[Vyssini]

If the board have evidence indicating Greenburg was attempting to entice Hasler out of his contract for 2012, they should take all necessary legal recourse- if all they have is information relating to 2013, then let it go.

On another related issue, maybe it is time the NRL and more importantly in our case Manly consider introducing non-competing clauses for coaches' contracts- in other words, a clause which prevents your head coach from coaching anywhere (or maybe the NRL) for two or three years if he (or she) decides to leave. A clause such as this would have prevented hasler from coaching any other team at least until 2014 if he elected to walk as he did at the end of 2011. If worded correctly, it doesn't prevent a coach from going elsewhere if sacked or if their existing contract ends and isn't renewed.

I've had a gutful of midseason coach and player transfers- it is the biggest single blight on the game and should be cleaned up by the new Commission.

 

[eagles2win]

My guess is they will push for a settlement

this

 

[tookey]

Didn't quite get your second point Tookey.

It should have read shouldn't sue.

 

[MANLY4LIFE]

damned if you damned if you dont :huh: :s

got into it with a dodgeys supporter yesterday defending dollar$ actions and why he left like he is some kind of messiah over there already ,and its only round 1 FFS cant wait till they lose a few 🙄🙄

 

[tookey]

The principle? Come on DSM5, it just makes us sound bitter. This is teh way of the professional world, people are head hunted all the time.

It wasn't ideal, but such is life. If there were contract issues etc, there are other ways to deal with it

You may recall that in the commercial tv network world recently, CH10 poached a senior executive from CH7, only to find that he was unable to work with them for about a year due to his current contract stilll being in effect.

Ad didn't Tallis have to sit out a season because he didn't want to play for a team that he was contracted to? Similar with SBW.

Hasler should have been made to sit out the 2012 season if he didn't want to coach us.

The way he handled the move damaged our club and brand immensley

 

[The Eagle]

I dont care that he signed elsewhere,i want him sued for trying to make others breach contract

He is really nothing to me,another Phil Bailey

Should be stripped of life membership for trying to make others breach contract

 

[MadMarcus]

Reading between the lines I think it is pretty clear that Greenburg lured Des to the Dogs in mid 2011 and then Des and Greenburg set about getting out of the commitment Des made to Manly for 2012.

If this is true then it is likely that we have grounds to sue both of them. The question will be whether we have sufficient evidence to back up the allegation.

If we have found the "smoking gun" then I say take them for all they are worth. If we have a few easily defensible emails then let it go.

I don't believe taking action over this sends any message that we would have rather had Des than Tooves. I think it sends the message "don't f*** with us", which is the message I personally think we should be sending!

 

[lsz]

Eagle where has be tried to get people to breach contracts?
If they have clauses so be it