Jump to content

Ackropj

Coach
  • Posts

    196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,543 profile views

Ackropj's Achievements

6

Reputation

  1. The problem i think that sheffeild will face with moving grounds to outside the district is funding from Grants would cease, i believe they get grants due to expansionism etc, I am aware they get lots of funding for where they are though whatever schemes they have available and that is down to terrific work from Mark Aston and the BOD etc. If this was to stop they wouldnt be a sustainable business as they would be heavily relient on away fans and having to pay rent to wherever they play. They must remain in the City.
  2. Just to point out, this is not me that has done any of this and i am just copying direct onto here. Have spent a few days researching this before commenting Interestingly it makes no odds what is or isn't in the contract because all such loyalty (anti competitor) clauses are illegal anyway under European law. What the extract below says (from a very long article) is that every citizen has the right to work freely and can not be obstructed from doing so. Any contravention of this contravenes the individuals fundamental (human) rights Another point to consider is that Sheffield effectively broke the agreement by allowing Barlow to play in the 9's. At that point Barlow had played against Sheffield in 2010 and the clause becomes null and void unless there is another written agreement to re-instate it. There is no legal standing in law allowing a contract to be broken by mutual consent and then re-applying it. Sheffield's claim against Halifax is tenuous at best. Halifax are Barlows new employers but there can be no contract in place between the clubs. The claim seems to centre around influencing Barlow to break his contract. This is virtually impossible to prove. As his employer Halifax have every right to expect him to work and Barlow has every right to work under European law. Sheffield also have to show they took all reasonable steps before commencing litigation (hence the offer to settle) Unfortunately they did not seek legal advice prior to the game or apply to a judge for an injunction to stop Barlow playing. Both Halifax and Barlow will claim that this is because they had no intention of preventing him playing and were only interested in financial reward. Potentially Sheffield could pursue Barlow for breach of contract, however there is no financial gain to be made from litigation against a part time rugby player. Sheffield also run the risk of a substantial counter claim by Barlow who can claim that the contract (release) agreement he signed contravenes The European Right to Work Act and his fundamental rights as a European citizen. Whilst Sheffield may win a small victory against Barlow financially, Barlow could sue through the European courts for "unlimited" damages. Seperate to the legalities is the cost. Sheffield United paid out
  3. What and Halifax have not had Major injuries this year then ?. still in the grand final, Its the Job of the Coach to sort this out. We managed, must mean we have a better coach then. We all have the same salary cap fella.
  4. So have in mind that fev don't have the ground or the Averaqe attandance then really you should be in agreement that Fax should be in line, Last year grand final, this year grand final, 2008 finished 3rd, 2007 finished 2nd. we have a tick box for attendance and for the ground that was completed earlier this year.
  5. Does anyone know what the outcome of the Hearing was with Stanley Gene Yesterday, or even if it went ahead, It was supposed to be on the 2nd of september according to all the press reports but i have no idea where ti find anything on this, as a Fax fan i am interested in findout out. Cheers in advance for anyone coming forward with info.
×
×
  • Create New...