Other News Source JAC

[BulldogYeezus]

Heads of agreement is not legally binding

Depends on the intention of the parties. See Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72

 

[capt obvious]

Depends on the intention of the parties. See Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72

Tigers will not realease a suitable player to trade, they dont have a leg to stand on.
Fuck jac, just sign noafoluma now!

 

[Teddybear]

Why would the tigers want a player that doesn't want to play with them

 

[piggy]

Heads of agreement is not legally binding

So then why would barrett say the situation with JAC is complicated? It must be the difficulty finding a player to exchange with the storm

 

[TwinTurbo]

Give them any of remis, okonbor,
Dwz or meaney. Surely one will be a option for them and one might go. Fuck I’d even say Crichton could go well there. I’d even cop hoppa. Anyone basically not cotric or Jake from our backs.

You do realise that the player has to agree, they can simply say “no” and their contract with us has to be honoured.

Go Dogs

 

[GTOWN]

mabye there’s bulldogs players willing to go, but who says that melb are offering more than a 1 year contract? Like for like replacement, and only for the length of the jac remaining contract.. might be a sticking point for some

 

[Nasheed]

bateman didnt sign becasued he missed his kids- already in the paper- fail
The Anderson situation been papers all year with multiple journo's calling for her to stand down- fail
Flannigan already in the papers- fail
Price sacked- already in papers for Months- fail
Lafai- Fail
JAC- been in papers that we have talking to him, all you have done is taking a stab about him signing- 50/50% chance
as i said when you release something before it is has been released in the press, then come back.
otherwise you are full of shit as usual.
you can even google cool off periods probably #dumbcunt

I could address every single point individually,
but for now id just like to point out for the readers how old mate above^ conveniently decided to leave out the point about the EGM papers (i preemptively pointed out he would do this).

He tries here to address every fact with a cloudy circle logic to justify it, but on the one with nuts and bolts proof he knew he couldnt come back too, he ignores. Which means he knows what he is doing.

So the question dear readers, is to ask yourself, what is his ^ agenda?

 

[Bulldogsteve]

I could address every single point individually,
but for now id just like to point out for the readers how old mate above^ conveniently decided to leave out the point about the EGM papers (i preemptively pointed out he would do this).

He tries here to address every fact with a cloudy circle logic to justify it, but on the one with nuts and bolts proof he knew he couldnt come back too, he ignores. Which means he knows what he is doing.

So the question dear readers, is to ask yourself, what is his ^ agenda?

The fact that you can not counter argue this shows you are a fraud and liar
You have no source apart from your janitor at the club
You are an embarrassment to yourself and family, you are Indian and claim to be Lebanese to gain followers
Your banned from me #dumbcunt

 

[Tassie Devil]

Realise @Nasheed is tiresome but holy shit the state of you guys continually biting to his bait. I mean, really? Far out.

 

[Dogtime]

More importantly, why did Nasheed get banned?

I miss him. Bring back Nasheed.

 

[D.O.W.]

all I’m going to add is if Nasheed gets JAC right, 50% chance or not, the proverbial oil has some merit

 

[doggieaaron]

Heads of agreement is not legally binding

The ceo is saying it is im not sure

 

[cookieman909]

Tigers need a half. Chuck Lewis in and give Maguire Wakeham that they so desperately wanted.

 

[BulldogYeezus]

The ceo is saying it is im not sure

From an Australian contract law perspective, the terms of a heads of agreement will be binding if each party did in fact intend for those terms to be binding on each such party. However, if the heads of agreement includes words to the effect of ‘agreement subject to contract’ or similar, it is likely that there will be no binding agreement until a formal contract is prepared and executed.

 

[Vlasnik]

We all know that any formal agreement or contract drawn up in the NRL is only as good as the toilet paper it is written on.

 

[BulldogYeezus]

We all know that any formal agreement or contract drawn up in the NRL is only as good as the toilet paper it is written on.

toilet paper is quite valuable in this day and age though

 

[piggy]

toilet paper is quite valuable in this day and age though

all I’m going to add is if Nasheed gets JAC right, 50% chance or not, the proverbial oil has some merit

on the tigers forum saying they are confident he has signed with tigers and will be announced after origin........looks like nasheeds good oil was full of sludge and cow shit

 

[Vlasnik]

toilet paper is quite valuable in this day and age though

Yeah covid-19 and panic buying has been good for the hygiene industry, cha ching $$$

 

[DinkumDog]

Depends on the intention of the parties. See Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72

Or, see Des Hasler v Canterbury Bulldogs [2017] and quote the former Chairman that it ‘wasn’t binding’ and ‘wouldn’t cost the club a cent’ when it wasn’t honoured and he was shown the door.
Litigation and a very substantial payout later...

 

[Cappuccino]

you have not given us one peace of information BEFORE it has hit the papers. All you have done is just taken a stab on what might happen.
IE flannagan, you gambled and lost.
i will respect your "oil" if you post BEFORE it hits the media.

Quite a few ppl were sent that documentby the way. So its not really anything to boast about
Just a childish middle aged loser trying to stroke his own ego and maintain his internet comedian persona. Very sad.