Des Hasler declined new jobs to stay at Bulldogs, court hears

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr Invisible

Banned
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
0
Reaction score
47
Hi guys first time poster but have enjoyed perusing the forum since 2007 and for the record thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it.

I'm a litigation lawyer so thought I post would some thoughts on the saga:

1) Des' claim all comes down to certainty of the MOU i.e. was there anything left to be negotiated and/or was the contract conditional on future events and negotiations. Most MOU/HOA are generally between the parties themselves and conditional on the parties entering into a further contract prepared and negotiated throughly by their respective lawyers. Having said that an MOU can be certain on its terms and therefore performed by the parties. It really depends how the judge construes it and whether the dogs can argue it's not certain enough to be performed as it is.

2) the media announcement about des' appointment is extrinsic to the contract and therefore comes under a principle called the parole evidence rule. However, the media announcement itself will not add any more certainty then the terms of the MOU/HOA. However, this issue is more relevant to the question of damages and loss of opportunity.

3) if liability is proved i.e. there was an enforceable legally binding contract the court will move onto the question of damages. Damages will be the amount under the contract had it been performed i.e. 1 million per season. However the question of mitigation comes in i.e. onus on Des to take steps to reduce his loss i.e. What steps he took to secure an income elsewhere. The likely scenario in the next year or so is that Des will secure a contract elsewhere otherwise it won't be a good look at the hearing to say he sat on his ass and did nothing plus I doubt Des won't want to be out of the game for too long otherwise like any career, this will adversely impact his ability to secure future employment.

4) the court will then take into account any income he has or will be receiving over the next 2 years and deduct that from what he will have received under his new contract with the dogs. This for me is Des' BIGGEST issue in trying to recover the whole amount which he is almost certainly to be unsuccessful.

5) by the way the contract claim above is his legal claim under the common law. Des also has a separate and additional claim of estoppel (a claim in equity law) where he Des will argue he relied on a promise by the dogs that he would be employed for the next 2 years and therefore declined other job opportunities and/or potential employers did not approach him. His claim for damages under this category is separate to his claim for the value of the contract of $2 million and would instead would be for lost opportunity i.e. the amount he would have signed with someone else for had he made himself available. Des needs to prove there was a real prospect of this happening and show evidence of inquiries or offers made to him.

What do I think will happen? Like most of you have already predicted, if I was his lawyer I would be telling Des to settle sooner rather than later if he wants move onto somewhere else. No doubt a settlement also suits the dogs!

Up the dogs and looking forward to 2018!!
Since it's cricket season I'll use this analogy.

You just deadset hit a 6 at the SCG, and put the ball into Centennial Parklands.

Welcome to The Kennel... superb first post :grinning:

Look fowards to seeing you round the traps :-)
 

steeliz

Kennel Addict
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
7,088
Reaction score
7,817
His managements advice has nothing to do with wether other teams approach him or not.
But it has everything to do with whether he considered taking them or not.

if his management told him he had a legally binding agreement with us and he didn't then they didn't do their jobs.

If they were truthful and told him that he didn't have a legally binding agreement and he chose to ignore the offers anyway then Des is at fault.
 

Bad Billy

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
16,342
Reaction score
12,230
But it has everything to do with whether he considered taking them or not.

if his management told him he had a legally binding agreement with us and he didn't then they didn't do their jobs.

If they were truthful and told him that he didn't have a legally binding agreement and he chose to ignore the offers anyway then Des is at fault.
You don’t get it, teams that were potentially looking at new coaching staff, wouldn’t have approached haslers management because we claimed he had been re-signed.
 

Junkey

Kennel Participant
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
241
Reaction score
113
You don’t get it, teams that were potentially looking at new coaching staff, wouldn’t have approached haslers management because we claimed he had been re-signed.
Also a coach of his seniority etc would not have has an oppottunity to get an NRL job for 2018.
 

steeliz

Kennel Addict
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
7,088
Reaction score
7,817
You don’t get it, teams that were potentially looking at new coaching staff, wouldn’t have approached haslers management because we claimed he had been re-signed.
You obviously don't get it.

Managers are always out to get a better deal for there clients whether they have a contract or not, just in case you haven't notice contracts aren't worth shit in the NRL. And Hasler only had an MOU not a contract.

Add to that Haslers own history of jumping ship while he has a valid contract (hope you haven't forgotten how we signed him). That was a legally binding contract he had with Manly, with us it is a non-binding MOU.

Not going back over his representatives failure but he is not one to sit on his arse if he can make more money elsewhere. What club wanted to sign him after this year anyway????
 

The DoggFather

OG DF
Premium Member
Gilded
Site's Top Poster
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
106,404
Reaction score
117,537
Let's be honest... the NRL seems to be like working as a politician. Paid for doing nothing, and impossible to get sacked from.

Greenberg and Grant really have made a complete and utter ballsup of the game.
Both corrupt as fuck
 

The DoggFather

OG DF
Premium Member
Gilded
Site's Top Poster
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
106,404
Reaction score
117,537
Hi guys first time poster but have enjoyed perusing the forum since 2007 and for the record thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it.

I'm a litigation lawyer so thought I post would some thoughts on the saga:

1) Des' claim all comes down to certainty of the MOU i.e. was there anything left to be negotiated and/or was the contract conditional on future events and negotiations. Most MOU/HOA are generally between the parties themselves and conditional on the parties entering into a further contract prepared and negotiated throughly by their respective lawyers. Having said that an MOU can be certain on its terms and therefore performed by the parties. It really depends how the judge construes it and whether the dogs can argue it's not certain enough to be performed as it is.

2) the media announcement about des' appointment is extrinsic to the contract and therefore comes under a principle called the parole evidence rule. However, the media announcement itself will not add any more certainty then the terms of the MOU/HOA. However, this issue is more relevant to the question of damages and loss of opportunity.

3) if liability is proved i.e. there was an enforceable legally binding contract the court will move onto the question of damages. Damages will be the amount under the contract had it been performed i.e. 1 million per season. However the question of mitigation comes in i.e. onus on Des to take steps to reduce his loss i.e. What steps he took to secure an income elsewhere. The likely scenario in the next year or so is that Des will secure a contract elsewhere otherwise it won't be a good look at the hearing to say he sat on his ass and did nothing plus I doubt Des won't want to be out of the game for too long otherwise like any career, this will adversely impact his ability to secure future employment.

4) the court will then take into account any income he has or will be receiving over the next 2 years and deduct that from what he will have received under his new contract with the dogs. This for me is Des' BIGGEST issue in trying to recover the whole amount which he is almost certainly to be unsuccessful.

5) by the way the contract claim above is his legal claim under the common law. Des also has a separate and additional claim of estoppel (a claim in equity law) where he Des will argue he relied on a promise by the dogs that he would be employed for the next 2 years and therefore declined other job opportunities and/or potential employers did not approach him. His claim for damages under this category is separate to his claim for the value of the contract of $2 million and would instead would be for lost opportunity i.e. the amount he would have signed with someone else for had he made himself available. Des needs to prove there was a real prospect of this happening and show evidence of inquiries or offers made to him.

What do I think will happen? Like most of you have already predicted, if I was his lawyer I would be telling Des to settle sooner rather than later if he wants move onto somewhere else. No doubt a settlement also suits the dogs!

Up the dogs and looking forward to 2018!!
Welcome brother! We need you to smarten up the joint lol
 

coach

Kennel Legend
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
11,447
Reaction score
6,504
Hi guys first time poster but have enjoyed perusing the forum since 2007 and for the record thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it.

I'm a litigation lawyer so thought I post would some thoughts on the saga:

1) Des' claim all comes down to certainty of the MOU i.e. was there anything left to be negotiated and/or was the contract conditional on future events and negotiations. Most MOU/HOA are generally between the parties themselves and conditional on the parties entering into a further contract prepared and negotiated throughly by their respective lawyers. Having said that an MOU can be certain on its terms and therefore performed by the parties. It really depends how the judge construes it and whether the dogs can argue it's not certain enough to be performed as it is.

2) the media announcement about des' appointment is extrinsic to the contract and therefore comes under a principle called the parole evidence rule. However, the media announcement itself will not add any more certainty then the terms of the MOU/HOA. However, this issue is more relevant to the question of damages and loss of opportunity.

3) if liability is proved i.e. there was an enforceable legally binding contract the court will move onto the question of damages. Damages will be the amount under the contract had it been performed i.e. 1 million per season. However the question of mitigation comes in i.e. onus on Des to take steps to reduce his loss i.e. What steps he took to secure an income elsewhere. The likely scenario in the next year or so is that Des will secure a contract elsewhere otherwise it won't be a good look at the hearing to say he sat on his ass and did nothing plus I doubt Des won't want to be out of the game for too long otherwise like any career, this will adversely impact his ability to secure future employment.

4) the court will then take into account any income he has or will be receiving over the next 2 years and deduct that from what he will have received under his new contract with the dogs. This for me is Des' BIGGEST issue in trying to recover the whole amount which he is almost certainly to be unsuccessful.

5) by the way the contract claim above is his legal claim under the common law. Des also has a separate and additional claim of estoppel (a claim in equity law) where he Des will argue he relied on a promise by the dogs that he would be employed for the next 2 years and therefore declined other job opportunities and/or potential employers did not approach him. His claim for damages under this category is separate to his claim for the value of the contract of $2 million and would instead would be for lost opportunity i.e. the amount he would have signed with someone else for had he made himself available. Des needs to prove there was a real prospect of this happening and show evidence of inquiries or offers made to him.

What do I think will happen? Like most of you have already predicted, if I was his lawyer I would be telling Des to settle sooner rather than later if he wants move onto somewhere else. No doubt a settlement also suits the dogs!

Up the dogs and looking forward to 2018!!
Thanks for dragging us cavemen into the light on the matter, great first post
 

Precise

Kennel Established
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
887
Reaction score
884

Alan79

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
13,213
Reaction score
18,992
Happy to stick to the facts. There is no footy dept cap in 2018. Fact. The NRL is in negotiations to try and introduce something in 2019 but the clubs have said no. The proposed NRL strategy will only be voluntary anyway until the next contract in 2022. the only way it can come in beforehand is if the clubs agree to it. The same as anything. It will relate to salaries and admin costs for the footy dept not the result of litigation that preceded its implementation. In any event just because an action is launched doesn't mean it will succeed. The strike rate is well below 50% and that would include settlements, the terms of which are confidential and the NRL will not have access to nor are entitled to.
I would imagine that the NRL would also be in a position where many club staff could pursue legal action if they potentially lose out on earnings if they are forced out of their current employment due to the implementation of a staffing salary cap. The NRL is a bit of a joke in this regard. It seems like they've popped this up with little thought for the possible fact that it's going to potentially reduce the quality of player development. They seem to be operating with finances only in mind.

Hi guys first time poster but have enjoyed perusing the forum since 2007 and for the record thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it.

I'm a litigation lawyer so thought I post would some thoughts on the saga:

1) Des' claim all comes down to certainty of the MOU i.e. was there anything left to be negotiated and/or was the contract conditional on future events and negotiations. Most MOU/HOA are generally between the parties themselves and conditional on the parties entering into a further contract prepared and negotiated throughly by their respective lawyers. Having said that an MOU can be certain on its terms and therefore performed by the parties. It really depends how the judge construes it and whether the dogs can argue it's not certain enough to be performed as it is.

2) the media announcement about des' appointment is extrinsic to the contract and therefore comes under a principle called the parole evidence rule. However, the media announcement itself will not add any more certainty then the terms of the MOU/HOA. However, this issue is more relevant to the question of damages and loss of opportunity.

3) if liability is proved i.e. there was an enforceable legally binding contract the court will move onto the question of damages. Damages will be the amount under the contract had it been performed i.e. 1 million per season. However the question of mitigation comes in i.e. onus on Des to take steps to reduce his loss i.e. What steps he took to secure an income elsewhere. The likely scenario in the next year or so is that Des will secure a contract elsewhere otherwise it won't be a good look at the hearing to say he sat on his ass and did nothing plus I doubt Des won't want to be out of the game for too long otherwise like any career, this will adversely impact his ability to secure future employment.

4) the court will then take into account any income he has or will be receiving over the next 2 years and deduct that from what he will have received under his new contract with the dogs. This for me is Des' BIGGEST issue in trying to recover the whole amount which he is almost certainly to be unsuccessful.

5) by the way the contract claim above is his legal claim under the common law. Des also has a separate and additional claim of estoppel (a claim in equity law) where he Des will argue he relied on a promise by the dogs that he would be employed for the next 2 years and therefore declined other job opportunities and/or potential employers did not approach him. His claim for damages under this category is separate to his claim for the value of the contract of $2 million and would instead would be for lost opportunity i.e. the amount he would have signed with someone else for had he made himself available. Des needs to prove there was a real prospect of this happening and show evidence of inquiries or offers made to him.

What do I think will happen? Like most of you have already predicted, if I was his lawyer I would be telling Des to settle sooner rather than later if he wants move onto somewhere else. No doubt a settlement also suits the dogs!

Up the dogs and looking forward to 2018!!
Great post Docta.
 

Indiandog

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Gilded
Joined
Oct 2, 2012
Messages
21,520
Reaction score
6,681
Hi guys first time poster but have enjoyed perusing the forum since 2007 and for the record thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it.

I'm a litigation lawyer so thought I post would some thoughts on the saga:

1) Des' claim all comes down to certainty of the MOU i.e. was there anything left to be negotiated and/or was the contract conditional on future events and negotiations. Most MOU/HOA are generally between the parties themselves and conditional on the parties entering into a further contract prepared and negotiated throughly by their respective lawyers. Having said that an MOU can be certain on its terms and therefore performed by the parties. It really depends how the judge construes it and whether the dogs can argue it's not certain enough to be performed as it is.

2) the media announcement about des' appointment is extrinsic to the contract and therefore comes under a principle called the parole evidence rule. However, the media announcement itself will not add any more certainty then the terms of the MOU/HOA. However, this issue is more relevant to the question of damages and loss of opportunity.

3) if liability is proved i.e. there was an enforceable legally binding contract the court will move onto the question of damages. Damages will be the amount under the contract had it been performed i.e. 1 million per season. However the question of mitigation comes in i.e. onus on Des to take steps to reduce his loss i.e. What steps he took to secure an income elsewhere. The likely scenario in the next year or so is that Des will secure a contract elsewhere otherwise it won't be a good look at the hearing to say he sat on his ass and did nothing plus I doubt Des won't want to be out of the game for too long otherwise like any career, this will adversely impact his ability to secure future employment.

4) the court will then take into account any income he has or will be receiving over the next 2 years and deduct that from what he will have received under his new contract with the dogs. This for me is Des' BIGGEST issue in trying to recover the whole amount which he is almost certainly to be unsuccessful.

5) by the way the contract claim above is his legal claim under the common law. Des also has a separate and additional claim of estoppel (a claim in equity law) where he Des will argue he relied on a promise by the dogs that he would be employed for the next 2 years and therefore declined other job opportunities and/or potential employers did not approach him. His claim for damages under this category is separate to his claim for the value of the contract of $2 million and would instead would be for lost opportunity i.e. the amount he would have signed with someone else for had he made himself available. Des needs to prove there was a real prospect of this happening and show evidence of inquiries or offers made to him.

What do I think will happen? Like most of you have already predicted, if I was his lawyer I would be telling Des to settle sooner rather than later if he wants move onto somewhere else. No doubt a settlement also suits the dogs!

Up the dogs and looking forward to 2018!!

this is exactly what I said earlier but in the layman words.
 

Dannyboi88

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
1,206
Exactly he resigned Hasler despite of most of the fans discontent and backed Hasler all the way to turn around and sack him and carry on in a sob interview about how he was this and that and dib is from a lawyer back ground and or is well off he should pay the damage or get his family to do the case probono cause he made the call and should fall on his sword simple raylene gone Hasler and dib has to go too
I think the opposing ticket will win with the people assembled and hope Mortimer gives his vote cause dibs already tried to banish Mortimer
 

speedy2460

Kennel Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
5,180
Reaction score
4,564
If Hasler was offered any coaching jobs, he should be made to disclose them to the court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top