Co-operative Championship play off. Halifax v Sheffield

[Phil]

Eagles lost get over it

[Ackropj]

Well, sooner or later I'll either be proved right or wrong.

I'm not a liar, though, and I'm also not repeating hearsay. If Fax fans want to live in cloud cuckoo land and deny there's a problem - which seems to be a trait I've noticed on other forums, especially with their "we're a big club" attitude

[West Country Eagle]

Eagles lost get over it

Eagles deserved to lose - Fax were much the better team. I've already said that

[Griff]

If you're so sure this is going to court, you shouldn't be commenting publicly.

[West Country Eagle]

If you're so sure this is going to court, you shouldn't be commenting publicly.

I've been very careful what I've said here. I've not gone into detail for that very reason.

That's assuming it's going to court - the Eagles may drop it.

[Ackropj]

I've been very careful what I've said here. I've not gone into detail for that very reason.

That's assuming it's going to court - the Eagles may drop it.

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

[West Country Eagle]

All interesting, but have you considered that Sheffield's claim might not be based on the 'he broke a verbal agreement to play' argument?

They might have a much, much stronger case based on earlier events.

We'll soon find out.