Des and his compensation

Status
Not open for further replies.

rwalker999

Kennel Established
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
607
Reaction score
219
Apparently a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been established between the Dogs and Des.

In general, an MOU is not legally binding. However, it can be binding if its contents contain the six elements of
a contract which are necessary to in fact make it enforceable.

These elements include:-

  • An offer.
  • An acceptance.
  • Competent parties who have the legal capacity to contract.
  • Lawful subject matter.
  • Mutuality of obligation.
  • Consideration.
The Dogs must prove that at least one of these elements was not established.
The first five elements are pretty well explanatory - consideration refers to dollar amount
arising from the agreement.

To further complicate things, a verbal agreement can sit aside a MOU and this can be legally binding.

I personally, would get Des, the super coach, to pay back what he has made over the years - less a few GF appearances, as our proud club has regressed to the point where we are no longer feared in this NRL competition.

So, the issue to be resolved is complex and your guess is as good as mine as to how it pans out.
 

boggie23

Kennel Addict
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
7,194
Reaction score
4,986
In all honesty if Dib wasn't running around publicising the fact that Hasler will be the coach in 18 & 19 then he may have been able to say they were working towards a contract. But when up until 2 weeks ago dib-shit was saying Hasler is the coach for 18 & 19 and he hasn't spoken to anyone else he sort of shoot himself in the foot.

The guy is a turd. Not only did the the club go down financially under his watch, he oversaw us during a period of decreasing crowd attendance and got us to arguably the worst attacking team of the modern era (ok he wasn't solely responsible but him, Hasler and castles all contributed). now he is dragging our club through the mud with his idiocity.

At the start of the year I said we have 3 problems that need to be moved. We are now 2/3 with one left. The sooner dib-shit is sacked or resigns the better for the team, the club, the fans and the league.

Biggest media whore since willie mason. And the bad thing is every time he opens his mouth he seems like a bigger idiot.
 

Indiandog

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Gilded
Joined
Oct 2, 2012
Messages
21,522
Reaction score
6,686
MOU is not a legally binding contract

IF this true, Des is going to get nothing out of it.

I am surprised Des (his lawyer) only signed an MOU and not a proper contract.
 

_G-Dog_

Kennel Legend
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
13,301
Reaction score
7,728
Am I the only one that thinks the club hasnt handled the situation that bad..

Sacking Des was never going to be an easy job, especially with few proven NRL coaches around..

Theyve done it now & if they can avoid/minimize a payout then its s bonus
 

D- voice

Kennel Addict
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
7,849
Reaction score
11,231
We all hope he gets nothing
But if we have too it's nothing
The damage he has caused is horrendous
But
if he had stayed it would have been catastrophic
Rejoice everyone...he is goooooooone
Thankfully Money is not a problem !
 

habs

xdf
Staff member
Administrator
Gilded
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
20,353
Reaction score
3,655

Bad Billy

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
16,342
Reaction score
12,230
I don't understand all the heartache and conjecture over this.
Clearly des is going to get a payout.
The dogs are just making his team sweat so they will accept a offer of less than he would otherwise.
 

flamebouyant

Kennel Legend
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
10,030
Reaction score
14,762
I don't understand all the heartache and conjecture over this.
Clearly des is going to get a payout.
The dogs are just making his team sweat so they will accept a offer of less than he would otherwise.
Exactly im not at all heartbroken, nor do i feel sorry for the guy. Im fucking ecstatic he is gone, and it doesnt affect me personally if the club does end up paying him some money. So basically, regardless of the final outcome, im fucking stoked he is gone.
.
 

Como Dog

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 21, 2017
Messages
3,233
Reaction score
3,781
Apparently a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been established between the Dogs and Des.

In general, an MOU is not legally binding. However, it can be binding if its contents contain the six elements of
a contract which are necessary to in fact make it enforceable.

These elements include:-

  • An offer.
  • An acceptance.
  • Competent parties who have the legal capacity to contract.
  • Lawful subject matter.
  • Mutuality of obligation.
  • Consideration.
The Dogs must prove that at least one of these elements was not established.
The first five elements are pretty well explanatory - consideration refers to dollar amount
arising from the agreement.

To further complicate things, a verbal agreement can sit aside a MOU and this can be legally binding.

I personally, would get Des, the super coach, to pay back what he has made over the years - less a few GF appearances, as our proud club has regressed to the point where we are no longer feared in this NRL competition.

So, the issue to be resolved is complex and your guess is as good as mine as to how it pans out.
Thanks for posting this info, really good to see the specific criteria.

I personally think we will pay Des a substantial amount but a paying it as either as a settlement or as damages. That way the money could be deemed as non contractual entitlements in terms of the coaching cap and for Dib to attempt to claim the agreement that was reached last April didn't cost us money as it was not binding.
 
Last edited:

rwalker999

Kennel Established
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
607
Reaction score
219
MOU is not a legally binding contract

IF this true, Des is going to get nothing out of it.

I am surprised Des (his lawyer) only signed an MOU and not a proper contract.
No disrespect Zee - but I think you should learn how to read and more importantly absorb !
 

Como Dog

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 21, 2017
Messages
3,233
Reaction score
3,781
The other thing some have suggested was the top 8 clause. Now that I think about it, given the agreement was announced as a contract extension rather than a new agreement, I'm starting to believe there was a top 8 clause inserted and that this has also changed some of the terms applicable for season 2017. If this applied then there would probably be a smaller amount owed for contractual termination.

Dib has initially suggested the HOA is non-binding, as this is probably the most preferred outcome with nothing owed. If it is deemed binding then the next position would probably be that only a specified termination / notice portion is owed rather than the full contract amounts.

Perhaps Des knowing he won't get much either way, has confided in his journo mates and that is why we are hearing claims of Un-Australian, not the family club etc and we should pay out his contract, in the hope that being a rich club we are then pressured into paying out more than is owed.

Anyway just my thoughts.
 

Mr Invisible

Banned
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
0
Reaction score
47
Hang on a second... has DES been quoted as saying he'll sue... or is this all just media bullshit?

I believe it's the later.
 

Wyzguy

Bulldog Tragic
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
1,333
Reaction score
102
They need to give him something - just not 1mil
 

Indiandog

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Gilded
Joined
Oct 2, 2012
Messages
21,522
Reaction score
6,686
No disrespect Zee - but I think you should learn how to read and more importantly absorb !

please explain.

Which part you want me to learn to read and also absorb?
 

Indiandog

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Gilded
Joined
Oct 2, 2012
Messages
21,522
Reaction score
6,686
It's no 5 actually. You don't know what the mutual understating was unless you were a blowie on the wall

from 10 years of my share trading back ground and going through MOUs of various spec stocks over the years , I know pretty well MOU is not a legally binding contract and any party can pull out of it without any implications and/or liable for compensation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top