cliffylyons
Member
lovefooty said:cliffylyons said:lovefooty said:cliffylyons said:slickster71 said:Start legal action against Dessi for breach of contract and other matters regarding while under contract with Manly. Also the dogs for talking to dessie while under contract.
If Des breached his contract and Manly was pursuing legal action he would have been stopped from coaching the scum this year. Unfortunately, because this has not happened, I don't think we have a leg to stand on in regards to suing him. As for chasing Canterbury for talking to him, you can't stop them from offering a contract to Des after his contract is over. If you remember Des signed on with Canterbury for 2013, whether or not they hoped he would be stepped down for 2012 is speculation, and I doubt that they have any evidence that Canterbury enticed him to break his contract.
Sadly, I don't think we have a case to put forward in regards to Des, otherwise he would not be currently coaching, an injunction would have been imposed immediately against Des and Canterbury.
slickster71 said:Keiren should be not registered and stopped from playing with the dogs to 2014. If this means sitting him on the sidelines for 12months then do so. Do not take a back step and do what other clubs have done and let them go.
Another problem is Kieran's contract has a clause which allows him to leave if Des is not coach, you cannot force a player to sit out 12 months if his LEGALLY bound contract allows him to leave earlier, otherwise we'd be looking at a serious case to answer.
Sad to say, but there's nothing illegal about what is happening, it is unethical, but ethics do not dictate our laws, and they are doing everything legally.
Rubbish
It has taken so long because they needed to get it right. To charge in half cocked would of made it a weak case. I have heard there were thousands of emails to go through. Also legal opinion was needed.
You are assuming that because it has taken some time that they have no grounds,well you would be wrong. just wait and see.
From day one they would have put an injunction on him when they SACKED him, but they didn't. Why wouldn't they do such a thing if they had grounds to sack him?
This whole issue has been a farce from day one.
Once again Rubbish
They are doing it the way the lawyer wants them to. You say because they didn't do it the way you are saying then there is no case.
They have better legal minds than you or me working on it.
Highly doubt it, an injunction would have been served at the time of sacking had they found anything, if they had evidence to sack him they sure as hell have enough evidence to impose an injunction against Des. An injunction is really easy to put forward, and then the defendant has to prove themselves innocent.
I still call bull**** that we have anything against Des.