Darrell Griffin sacked - Fev drama

[Kayakman]

18 minutes ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

But they haven’t agreed that. Griffin is in a position where he knows his contract more intimately than Duffy. He’s clearly tried to circumvent the contract and been caught out. 

Knowing what you know, do you honestly think Griffin has a solid case?

 

42 minutes ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

How does that translate to Fev needing to get their act together? It would be all well and good if he hadn’t knowingly breached his contract but he has. 

Duffy has no authority in this case. Sure griffin could argue he was acting as an agent of the club but that argument is wafer thin when the clause states ‘written permission from chairman or ceo’ and this has been spelt out verbally as well as contractually.

you said Fev need to get their act together. I asked how. You’ve responded with a tenuous legal case griffin could take up but won’t because he hasn’t got a leg to stand on.

the only thing I can see that Fev could do differently is provide Duffy with some more information on contract clauses but should that be his job. 

Griffin breached his contract (and moral obligation after being asked not to play) and Duffy has made an error. The club had moved quickly to apply punishments they deem fit. What is the alternative? Let players do what they want and do nothing for a fear of being sued on a myriad of spurious legal issues? There has to be a line somewhere. The UK isn’t as litigious as the US for example.

Again, I don’t see how the club can get it’s act together any more than they have. 

Lastly, if you were a lawyer, which you might be for all I know, could you honestly tell me that if you were offered both theoritical cases you’d take Griffin’s?

Tell it to the judge, I'd take any case at $700/hr.plus expenses.  There are so many holes in your legal argument that it looks like two rounds out of a nice pump action Lakefield shotgun with #5 shot on a large paper target.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

1 minute ago, Kayakman said:

 

Tell it to the judge, I'd take any case at $700/hr.plus expenses.  There are so many holes in your legal argument that it looks like two rounds out of a nice pump action Lakefield shotgun with #5 shot on a large paper target.

A picture of a gun. That proves it.

I’ll see you in court then! I assume griffin will see rovers there in reality given the strength of his legal case and it’ll be an easy win. Drop him a line. 

[westside]

Says the guy who claims he knows "lots of failed NFL players" who couldn't make it in amateur American RL, playing against bad RU players. Yeah ok pal, you're real credible.

[Kayakman]

12 minutes ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

A picture of a gun. That proves it.

I’ll see you in court then! I assume griffin will see rovers there in reality given the strength of his legal case and it’ll be an easy win. Drop him a line. 

He probably wouldn't get enough to pay the legal fees unless an order was made for them to compensate his attorney (which can be awarded if he won).  I would say, prima facie its a 50/50 for him to win.

Getting snappy and emotional about it does nothing for your case...its just business.

Fev needs to get their act together so something like this doesn't happen again as that would mean a pattern which goes directly to motive.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

7 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

He probably wouldn't get enough to pay the legal fees unless an order was made for them to compensate his attorney (which can be awarded if he won).  I would say, prima facie its a 50/50 for him to win.

Getting snappy and emotional about it does nothing for your case...its just business.

Fev needs to get their act together so something like this doesn't happen again as that would mean a pattern which goes directly to motive.

I’m impressed you can judge my emotional state through the medium of Internet forum. Did I use too many exclamation marks? I’m merely discussing the issue mate. It’s a forum.

he would surely claim the legal fees back but he knows he has little chance of winning. That text message, if you’ve read it, doesn’t provide written permission even from Duffy.

In any case I stand by the fact I think the club have done the right thing and the outcome is a victory for contract law. The club asked him not to do something and put the request in a contract clause, the player ignored it and has been punished. Griffin may indeed sue and win but it would be a poor reflection on the contractual arrangement in my opinion.

players will break contracts and behave out of turn. Surely you agree that the clubs need that mechanism to manage that risk. 

What’s your opinion on the outcome?

[Kayakman]

16 minutes ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

I’m impressed you can judge my emotional state through the medium of Internet forum. Did I use too many exclamation marks? I’m merely discussing the issue mate. It’s a forum.

he would surely claim the legal fees back but he knows he has little chance of winning. That text message, if you’ve read it, doesn’t provide written permission even from Duffy.

In any case I stand by the fact I think the club have done the right thing and the outcome is a victory for contract law. The club asked him not to do something and put the request in a contract clause, the player ignored it and has been punished. Griffin may indeed sue and win but it would be a poor reflection on the contractual arrangement in my opinion.

players will break contracts and behave out of turn. Surely you agree that the clubs need that mechanism to manage that risk. 

What’s your opinion on the outcome?

Ha!...your a funny one Tex.

Of course, of course.   The only problem is if the coach gave him the Okay or its a clear case...that complicates it, thats all I'm saying. 

Its a tough one, and as I've said, I think its a 50/50 either way.  I'd have to know more to make an informed opinion.

Now take it easy...didn't mean to scare ya with the picture of the shotgun...its a nice shotgun (a Lakefield), and fires like a beaut.

 

[Tex Evans Thigh]

1 hour ago, Kayakman said:

Ha!...your a funny one Tex.

Of course, of course.   The only problem is if the coach gave him the Okay or its a clear case...that complicates it, thats all I'm saying. 

Its a tough one, and as I've said, I think its a 50/50 either way.  I'd have to know more to make an informed opinion.

Now take it easy...didn't mean to scare ya with the picture of the shotgun...its a nice shotgun (a Lakefield), and fires like a beaut.

 

I’ll take my anxiety pills and I should be ok...

[Robin Evans]

It'll be reight.

[sentoffagain2]

29 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

It'll be reight.

All this for a 37yrn old prop who gives the team a good 10min each half.I think Fev will survive without him.

[Robin Evans]

Yup.

 

[wackojacko]

9 hours ago, Scubby said:

Was he begging Duffy for Mercy? 

Well, they did release him...

[RP London]

12 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

I wouldnt necessarily think its so cut and dried. Duffy was his line manager after all, and generally, a request going to CEO or Chairman level would go through a chain of command, I'm sure the Chairman doesnt want the tea lady giving him a call for permissions. 

If Duffy gave permission and wasnt clear or left it open to interpretation as to whether that was his agreement rather than company agreement then i wouldnt be too confident that Fev have covered themselves. In fact their press release manages to contradict itself, it says that it was written in to his contract that he could seek permission to play RU, and that it was written in to his contract that he couldnt play RU. Both of those cant be true. Either he can seek permission or he can't do it.

just read further down and noticed what I was saying you are already having a discussion about.. will read on and if need be come back to it. 

After reading it so far my opinions have already been stated by others so I'll leave it at this.. 

Nothing to see here move on.. 

[Kenilworth Tiger]

I don't think his brother Josh has covered himself in glory in all this

[Tongs ya bas]

8 hours ago, Kayakman said:

 

Tell it to the judge, I'd take any case at $700/hr.plus expenses.  There are so many holes in your legal argument that it looks like two rounds out of a nice pump action Lakefield shotgun with #5 shot on a large paper target.

You like your guns don't you?

[Tongs ya bas]

10 hours ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

I don't understand the sentence.

There's two sentences, admittedly not Wildean in their construction.

Mate, I agree with your point: so I don't propose to fr ig about. So if it's ok by you I'll park it.

[JohnM]

12 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

it says that it was written in to his contract that he could seek permission to play RU

I think thats a misinterpretation.

“RFL players’ contracts clearly state that permission to do so must be granted, in writing, by a chief executive or chairman.

in other words, if you want to play another contact sport, you must have permission in writing, from the CEO or Chairman.

not  "if you want to play, they must give you permission."

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

11 hours ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

How? they inserted a clause and he's breached. Duffy was doing what any coach would do and trying to protect his player, unfortunately it's backfired. The club have acted professionally in my opinion. Duffy would likely act differently given his time again but he has been disciplined internally. Not sure how much more Fev could get their act together. Is Duffy supposed to act as contract manager now?

there's a good reason Griffin isn't pursuing legal action and it's not because 'the contract wasn't worth much'. He's highly unlikely to get a contract as good as the one he just lost which will have been 20-30k for the season.

Then again.... https://www.pontefractandcastlefordexpress.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/featherstone-rovers/veteran-prop-griffin-taking-legal-advice-after-being-sacked-by-featherstone-rovers-1-8946593

 

[Kayakman]

1 hour ago, Tongs ya bas said:

You like your guns don't you?

Ya I do, anything wrong with that?  I also enjoy shooting, its an Olympic sport, anything wrong with that?

[SSoutherner]

One thing that could give him a leg to stand on legally would be if the standard contract contains other clauses that state "must be signed off by CX or CEO" but those had routinely been delegated to a lower level official like Duffy. That could be argued to have led to Griffin believing that Duffy was equally empowered to give permission for RU playing. No doubt it will all come out in the wash as we just don't have enough of the info to be able to make a judgement on who is right or wrong.

I know in my job i regularly make agreements with customers varying our terms of business (in writing) despite the standard terms saying they can only be varied by a Director - contract law is about intent as much as anything. If He can show he justifiably believed that there was an intent by Fev to vary the terms then that may be enough - we are talking civil court not criminal so it s "balance of evidence" not "beyond all reasonable doubt"

[Kayakman]

2 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Then again.... https://www.pontefractandcastlefordexpress.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/featherstone-rovers/veteran-prop-griffin-taking-legal-advice-after-being-sacked-by-featherstone-rovers-1-8946593

 

 

10 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I agree, I wasn't trying to infer permission had to be forthcoming simply that he could ask and have it considered 

More facts will have to come out but I think the guy clearly feels he was wronged and is at least inquiring if he should take it further.

"Did the coach, as an administrative agent, 'convey a meaning' to the player that he was allowed to play the Union game and subsequently he gave permission to circumvent the written contract via verbal/written  command?"

-I think that is the relevant question in this case.

[Tonka]

Lawyer here.

Haven't seen the exact wording of the agreement - always important.

Also the texts cited by Josh don't tell the whole story.  Not least because there were 3 matches and the texts could only be referring to 1.  But certainly they give the impression Duffy was aware of 1 match, and even if it is not stated as such I think it is a fair inference this amounts to "permission" or a waiver of the right to rely on the breach as it appears it was known he would play before he did.

Whether DG is entitled to rely on any such permission or waiver by Duffy is a matter of fact and you'd need to hear evidence on whether this was the role Duffy played and whether DG was entitled to believe that Duffy was so empowered.

But Duffy is the coach and if DG told him about each match before it was played, on balance I'd side with DG (marginally).

But the contract wording or some of the factual evidence might blow that out of the water.

[Busted Dick]

I doubt that Griffin will be successful in any Employment Tribunal claim because the Tribunal will merely consider whether or not Fev were entitled to dismiss him, and will not concern themselves with arguments about the severity of the sanction.  Griffin broke the terms of his contract which is almost certainly gross misconduct, therefore they are entitled to dismiss.  Griffin can argue that he believed that Duffy was acting on behalf of the employer but, assuming that he has already put that position forward in his dismissal hearing, and that Fev are able to show that Duffy does not have the authority to vary terms of contracts, then I think it's a non-starter.

For what it's worth, based on what we know, I probably would not have sacked him; yes, it's a breach of contract, constitutes gross misconduct and therefore Fev are entitled to show him the door; however the mitigating circumstance (permission from Duffy) might point to a final written warning (unless he has previously been disciplined for the same thing).  I would then want to discuss the situation with Duffy under the framework of the discipline procedure.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Lawyer here.

Haven't seen the exact wording of the agreement - always important.

Also the texts cited by Josh don't tell the whole story.  Not least because there were 3 matches and the texts could only be referring to 1.  But certainly they give the impression Duffy was aware of 1 match, and even if it is not stated as such I think it is a fair inference this amounts to "permission" or a waiver of the right to rely on the breach as it appears it was known he would play before he did.

Whether DG is entitled to rely on any such permission or waiver by Duffy is a matter of fact and you'd need to hear evidence on whether this was the role Duffy played and whether DG was entitled to believe that Duffy was so empowered.

But Duffy is the coach and if DG told him about each match before it was played, on balance I'd side with DG (marginally).

But the contract wording or some of the factual evidence might blow that out of the water.

Thanks Tonka, always good to get an expert on the board!

I read the texts (maybe incorrectly) as referring to two different matches, so maybe he has 2 covered. 

Based on the wording that during contract negotiations it was explicitly discussed that he couldn't play Union - to the point that it was added into his contract specifically, and then DG went and got permission from somebody not involved in that first discussion - would that go against DG potentially?

It reads to me that permission is sometimes given for other contact sports (Union in this case), and Diffy may have acted on that understanding, but in 2017 it was explicitly discussed with Griffin (potentially without Duffy being aware) that he was not allowed to play it, hence the non-standard clause in the contract.

Would the inclusion of an additional clause make it difficult for DG to play a touch dumb on this?

[Busted Dick]

If Griffin did have an additional clause added to his contract, that he shouldn't play RU, then that possibly points towards previous instances of him doing so.  Regardless, if that is not a standard clause in a RL players contract then they should have informed Duffy, as Griffin's Line Manager, and as the person in authority closest to him.  If they didn't inform Duffy then Fev are a shower.  If they did inform Duffy, and he knew that Griffin was breaking his contract then Duffy can get ready for a rocket up his bum!

 

[David Shepherd]

Typical Fev.  We've had a great off season, made a few good signings and one spectacular (at our level) one. Season ticket sales are well up, new sponsors and commercial partners in the fold etc etc.

 

Then we go and cock it all up with some seriously amateur back room goings on.