Como Dog
Kennel Enthusiast
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2017
- Messages
- 3,233
- Reaction score
- 3,781
Didn't think so although I remember hearing of an appeal on that basis.Didn't he get locked up?
Didn't think so although I remember hearing of an appeal on that basis.Didn't he get locked up?
You've absolutely summed it up...The Hasler saga is going to be very interesting, from what I've heard @ read he was originally on $1,000,000 was it with or without bonuses I don't know.
So why would Dib and the board agree to upgrade and sign of on a new contract of $1.2000,000 without water tight clauses, if the clause include a top 4 or top 8 finish, by going to court Hasler is only bashing his head against a brick wall and is doing it out of bitterness against our club, which would not be surprising considering his coaching antics at our club. If however Dib and our board failed in the wording of the contract and it results in costing our club a lot of money, I don't think that they would wan't to face the fans at February AGM.
TIME WILL TELL.
I can't see how either strategy plays out as an add on to the cap. The MOU was agreed upon during the previous season so even if the coaches salaries were included (and they aren't before 2019) this is not a salary it is a damages claim for lost earnings. I am confident this won't see a court room hearing as it will be settled one way or another beforehand. We won't know how much because it will be confidential but I would guess somewhere around the $500 - $600K mark plus expenses.I personally think the club will settle in court.... if they pay Des outside of court, it goes to the "coaches cap"... if they settle in court, doesnt go to the cap
Haslers manager should have contacted other clubs if there was any doubt that Des was unwanted at Belmore.It’s naive to think the club has no liabilities in this matter. A heads of agreement is non-binding and if that’s where it ended the club would be fine. However, on numerous occasions, during the season we said publicly that we had resigned hasler. Those comments would almost certainly stopped other clubs from approaching hasler. So we’d be liable for lost wages, for at least this season.
The challenge for the clubs legal team is to make hasler swallow a deal that is both palatable for us and him.
Half of the original HOA would be a good result for all.
Pay the man and let’s all move on.
Des Hasler re-signs with Canterbury Bulldogs until end of 2019Haslers manager should have contacted other clubs if there was any doubt that Des was unwanted at Belmore.
Sure their was a lot of noise about Des been re signed for two more years, but did the noise come from the clubs official spokesperson.
I’ve always wanted to do that to someone who I think has unfairly charged me for something.yeah, pay him in all silver coins. maye just 5 and 10 cent coins only.
This supports my original thoughts about an extension versus a new contract. Very real possibility that existing contractual clauses have been updated to reflect new clauses e.g. performance clauses that could have been brought in to the existing agreement and gave the club the grounds to make Des go.Des Hasler re-signs with Canterbury Bulldogs until end of 2019
April 3 2017
Rugby League
Finally, the interminable saga over Des Hasler's future is over.
Less than three hours after Wests Tigers unveiled Ivan Cleary as their new head coach, Canterbury put a full stop to the year-long discussion over Hasler's tenure at Belmore by announcing his retention on a two-year contract extension on Monday night It had been expected that the Bulldogs would take to as long as round 12 to make a final call on the coach who had taken them to five semi-finals series and two grand finals since his arrival at the club before the 2012 season but following a gritty 10-7 victory over Brisbane last Thursday night the club acted swiftly.
Hasler said on Monday night he was "extremely happy" to be staying on at Canterbury until at least the end of the 2019 season.
"The club has great history and tradition and an incredibly loyal fan base. I am pleased that I have been able to reach an agreement with the club to extend my contract until the end of 2019," Hasler said.
Only a week ago it seemed a very real possibility that Hasler would be on the way out at Belmore. A 36-0 drubbing by Manly intensified the scrutiny on him and there appeared to be genuine division at board level over whether he was the right man to take the team forward in seasons to come, with lingering questions not just about the Bulldogs' form but about recruitment and retention decisions made in recent seasons.
Following the victory over the Broncos at ANZ Stadium and a board meeting directly before that game, though, a revised offer of a contract extension was made. With the maverick coach accepting the terms and signing on Monday it brings to an close a period of extended uncertainty for Canterbury.
"Des is a proven coach. His record over the years shows that and we are extremely pleased that negotiations have resulted in Des remaining at the club until the end of the 2019 season," Bulldogs chief executive Raelene Castle said.
"This contract extension builds on the last five years of growth within our football program and Des is looking forward to the next two years."
Spot on. If beastwood is moved on sezer is coming.I totally agree mate. There's a lot of stuff we don't know anyway I know Ray ain't going to point fingers at someone and make it public for everyone to know. He done what he had to do and got on with business for the club's and fans best interest. I reckon all this was done maybe to at least have foran and woods officially signed and not officially sign hasler.
What really should matter now is that we look forward to 2018 and hopefully sezer is signed if possible to complete our halves for next season, firgers crossed
lol i did not know.I’ve always wanted to do that to someone who I think has unfairly charged me for something.
Sadly, it’s not considered legal tender.
A payment of coins is a legal tender throughout Australia if it is made in Australian coins, but this is subject to some restrictions about how much can be paid in coin. According to the Currency Act 1965 (section 16) coins are legal tender for payment of amounts which are limited as follows:
For example, if someone wants to pay a merchant with five cent coins, they can only pay up to $5 worth of five cent coins and any more than that will not be considered legal tender.
- not exceeding 20c if 1c and/or 2c coins are offered (these coins have been withdrawn from circulation, but are still legal tender);
- not exceeding $5 if any combination of 5c, 10c, 20c and 50c coins are offered; and
- not exceeding 10 times the face value of the coin if $1 or $2 coins are offered.
But that is not the argument with Des as he has completed his actual contract and they are now arguing over whether he has a new one or not. If he does then we pay if he doesn't then we don't. Technically, I think you will find that if the player is sacked he is entitled to the full value of his contract. I suspect it is something of a gentlemens agreement between the clubs and managers that the player is only paid out the difference by the old club. If you are talking about transfers then again I don't think it has anything to do with the player but rather an agreement that benefits both clubs that results in the shared cost.I still think, how coaches who get moved on while under contract should be paid off, should be the same as it is for players. You get paid the difference between what you earn elsewhere, and the contract. So to get a full 2 mill, Des would have to not coach at all for 2 years. If the contract is valid.
We can argue all night about semantics. The conclusion is that it is an absolute Dog's breakfast (pardon the pun). I have never seen this mess in 30 plus years suppoeting the Club. Awful awful messBut that is not the argument with Des as he has completed his actual contract and they are now arguing over whether he has a new one or not. If he does then we pay if he doesn't then we don't. Technically, I think you will find that if the player is sacked he is entitled to the full value of his contract. I suspect it is something of a gentlemens agreement between the clubs and managers that the player is only paid out the difference by the old club. If you are talking about transfers then again I don't think it has anything to do with the player but rather an agreement that benefits both clubs that results in the shared cost.