It would be cheaper to pay out Jason Taylors final two years than to get rid of Robbie.

[Tiger_In_The_Gong]

Wasting your time Bobo, they are in for the fight. Its not about reason or clear and simple facts, theyve chosen their side and they will continue to defend it regardless.

That's a real peanut response. I could say exactly the same thing about you.

Fair enough we can disagree, but both sides here feel they are following the clear and simple facts; don't be so patronising.

Its hard when you keep missing the point.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

[
He can't very well play him in reserves if he has already left the club!

The point you are trying to raise is irrelevant. Whether you view it as a personal threat or part of normal club operations, if Taylor intends to play Farah in reserves, he can. He therefore is permitted to tell Farah exactly that - if you stay with us, you will be playing reserves.

What you don't seem to get is that playing reserves is part of normal football operations.

Now Farah might have a valid argument that giving his standing in the game, representative experience, past performances, that it is unreasonable to play him in reserve grade at this time. But as Watto pointed out, to win that argument in court would take an eternity, and it's a very fragile argument anyway.

some of what you are saying here is correct.
the only difference in this case is - the playing reserves issue - was used as a threat.
thats the big issue.
had he not said that - RLPA and everyone else legal etc etc would have nothing.
But because it was used as a threat so to speak, thats what cannot be be done and in time, you'll find that - that 1 point may well be what brings JT undone. it may.
As for his opinions regarding form etc etc…
in a court of law, a judge will look at recent performance regarding representative football (not just the main comp). they will seek comments from Rep coaches etc and will form an opinion from that.
certainly not on what JT says or vice versa on what Robbie says.
And legally speaking, i would say regardless of Robbies form at club level, the fact that he has represented NSW and Aust in the last 12-18 months puts him in a better light than the argument that hes beong dropped to reserves because hes not in form.

In this court case that won't happen. You think the judge may seek opinions of club coaches like Potter and Sheens or just rep coaches who have him for a week? What do you think oh educated one?

Maybe they'll just show the video of the Warriors game, that should be enough.

 

[bobo125]

In this court case that won't happen. You think the judge may seek opinions of club coaches like Potter and Sheens or just rep coaches who have him for a week? What do you think oh educated

Cmon bobo let's be realistic.

The day a court forces a coach to select a player in first grade is the day pigs fly, or Tigers win all games in all grades in a full season.

Coaches constantly do, and are permitted to, threaten players with reserve grade. That's part of their job, to promote the performers and demote the under-performers. You use the word "threat" to have sinister tones, but employees in accomplished workplaces are always under performance review. If your performance drops, or your boss deems it unacceptable / below expectations, there are going to be consequences.

Say what you want about supportive evidence, the bottom line is that head coach selects the team and he doesn't need to justify those decisions. Same as you don't need to justify externally why you hired one particular candidate over another, so long as your selection argument is not prejudiced against race / beliefs / disability. If it's based on performance, then it's solid.

Benji could have made the same argument when Potter demoted him to the bench - Kiwi captain, long-term first grader, premiership winner etc. It doesn't hold water. Similarly for players who sign with other clubs and are then dropped by their current coach - nothing ever happens.

Mate I hear what your saying and there is one major key difference here and that is
You cannot threaten a player with something that is designed to make them quit.
That's the key.

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

In this court case that won't happen. You think the judge may seek opinions of club coaches like Potter and Sheens or just rep coaches who have him for a week? What do you think oh educated one?

Read this slowly g a l l a g h e r

If this went to court, iiiiiiffffffffffffff
they would look at his current year overall.
Regardless of how good or bad or what is perceived in relation to his form interpretation from the coach who made the threat
they will look at such things like :
His status at the club - he's the captain
Any rep football - nsw & Aust jerseys within last 12-18 months.
Relationships between him and the person accused of making the threats
This is done to try and determine if playing reserves would be a normal process or part his time at the club or if playing reserve grade was a statement made to intimidate or force a result that is desired by the club / person making the threat.

As for Taylor taking Robbie to court as another member stated was also therefore possible….
If at any time Taylor felt Robbie had over stepped the mark with him as the boss, he could have followed really simple laws and processes of issuing him with warning or notices. I believe 2 or 3 warning would be enough to terminate a contract.
It could have been cleaner and minus all this nonscence.

This issue we are taking about is how the law is set up to deal with these type of workplace instances. Both parties are protected if they work within the laws.
The moment a threat was made is the moment it got tricky for the Tigers board.

Cmon bobo let's be realistic.

The day a court forces a coach to select a player in first grade is the day pigs fly, or Tigers win all games in all grades in a full season.

Coaches constantly do, and are permitted to, threaten players with reserve grade. That's part of their job, to promote the performers and demote the under-performers. You use the word "threat" to have sinister tones, but employees in accomplished workplaces are always under performance review. If your performance drops, or your boss deems it unacceptable / below expectations, there are going to be consequences.

Say what you want about supportive evidence, the bottom line is that head coach selects the team and he doesn't need to justify those decisions. Same as you don't need to justify externally why you hired one particular candidate over another, so long as your selection argument is not prejudiced against race / beliefs / disability. If it's based on performance, then it's solid.

Benji could have made the same argument when Potter demoted him to the bench - Kiwi captain, long-term first grader, premiership winner etc. It doesn't hold water. Similarly for players who sign with other clubs and are then dropped by their current coach - nothing ever happens.

Wouldn't worry about the court, the crowd would hang Taylor from the goal posts if he tried it on.

 

[bobo125]

Mark Bosnich revealed tonight on the back page that the RLPA has issued the Tigers with a breach notice today regarding the threats made by the coach towards Farah / they are in breech of contract.

He stated his manager is the Sam ayoub and that he has been in contact with him and Robbie today.

I am guessing this is why there was a very serious Board meeting tonight where 'unofficially' the board and sponsors have asked the coach to explain his actions.

 

[Tiger_In_The_Gong]

A breach notice hey.

Thats good to hear.

 

[TYGA]

Des Hasler spécial. The RLPA are bigger mugs than Taylor and our management.

 

[snowleopard]

Having had many experiences like this in business I agree. .it's called constructive dismissal and I think that if it is true then JT is in big trouble and the Board has been exposed .

_Posted using RoarFEED Android 1.2.4_

 

[jirskyr]

Wasting your time Bobo, they are in for the fight. Its not about reason or clear and simple facts, theyve chosen their side and they will continue to defend it regardless.

That's a real peanut response. I could say exactly the same thing about you.

Fair enough we can disagree, but both sides here feel they are following the clear and simple facts; don't be so patronising.

Its hard when you keep missing the point.

Two peanut responses in a row, good work.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

Mark Bosnich revealed tonight on the back page that the RLPA has issued the Tigers with a breach notice today regarding the threats made by the coach towards Farah / they are in breech of contract.

He stated his manager is the Sam ayoub and that he has been in contact with him and Robbie today.

I am guessing this is why there was a very serious Board meeting tonight where 'unofficially' the board and sponsors have asked the coach to explain his actions.

The SMH ran a story about Taylor's alleged threat as it applies to the salary cap. But there are the workplace issues as well which hopefully will see the end of Taylor out our club.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/farah-row-nrl-and-players-association-should-not-tolerate-situation-20150827-gj8wdi.html

 

[Tiger_In_The_Gong]

Wasting your time Bobo, they are in for the fight. Its not about reason or clear and simple facts, theyve chosen their side and they will continue to defend it regardless.

That's a real peanut response. I could say exactly the same thing about you.

Fair enough we can disagree, but both sides here feel they are following the clear and simple facts; don't be so patronising.

Its hard when you keep missing the point.

Two peanut responses in a row, good work.

I dont know what you expect Jirskyr.

You arent going to get an detailed essay debating the finer points of it mate, why should i play your game.

Ive explained the situation, you dont find it relevant and continue to overlook the very simple and uncomplicated aspect of it under modern law.

Why should i continue to invest my energy in explaining it to you?

 

[jirskyr]

Why should i continue to invest my energy in explaining it to you?

You shouldn't, but you keep doing it anyway.

The reason I said you gave peanut responses is you seem to think I don't understand what you are saying, that somehow you have the clear vision and I can't grasp it, that I am ignoring the "reason or clear and simple facts". I totally get what you are saying, I just don't agree, which is fine.

 

[innsaneink]

I didnt watch all of the original interview, or im not sure which one it was supposed to come from…..but is there a record of JT saying Farah will play reserves next year, or did farah just say to media thats what he was told.
In the case of the latter, if im not mistaken which I probably am cause im no lawyer, wouldnt that be ''hearsay''/?

 

[barra]

Ink from the stories I've read it was said, or indicated, at a meeting between Taylor, Reddy, Farah and Ayoub.

Either Taylor or Reddy said it. Or maybe both?

 

[innsaneink]

Ink from the stories I've read it was said, or indicated, at a meeting between Taylor, Reddy, Farah and Ayoub.

Either Taylor or Reddy said it. Or maybe both?

Thats what I thouht….I guess if it comes down to swearing on oath, thats one thing, but as it stands this part is just he said she said imo

 

[tiger_one]

The thing is, Ink if it was "he said, she said," we have heard and seen on TV Robbie Farah saying he was told he's be in the reggies next season if he stayed at Wests Tigers.
BUT there's be NO denial from Taylor or anyone associated with Wests Tigers admin. to suggest this was not said.
So, based on all that, Farah would appear to be telling it as it is.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Farah going out to the media and repeating what was said to him is hearsay. Unless JT or whomever purportedly told him he was to be playing reggies admits to it, or there is proof, it will continue to be hearsay.

 

[bobo125]

Ink from the stories I've read it was said, or indicated, at a meeting between Taylor, Reddy, Farah and Ayoub.

Either Taylor or Reddy said it. Or maybe both?

Thats what I thouht….I guess if it comes down to swearing on oath, thats one thing, but as it stands this part is just he said she said imo

i believe Taylor openly admitted it at a press conference 2 days later when asked about the reserve grade threat.
he replied (in kind) - yes things were said in that meeting that were said in the heat of the situation.

There is no conjecture about the fact that the threat was said and made.
That is not in dispute at all actually.

you can also bet your last penny on the fact that if Taylor had infact NOT said that, he would have come out both guns firing at Laurey Daely, cameron Smith, FOX sports and everyone else that has reported it and stated "what a thing to say"
Taylor would have 100% come out and put that on blast !!!

it now just forms a piece of the puzzle in how the situation was managed by the coach.

 

[bobo125]

Having had many experiences like this in business I agree. .it's called constructive dismissal and I think that if it is true then JT is in big trouble and the Board has been exposed .

_Posted using RoarFEED Android 1.2.4_

Thats the legal term for the threat being made.
thats the the thing that has quite a few parties (club, sponsors, NRL, RLPA, managers) very concerned and waiting to see how this will be dealt with.

 

[tiger_one]

Interesting and (perhaps damning) - source: http://workplaceinfo.com.au/resources/employment-topics-a-z/constructive-dismissal

Constructive dismissal
Where an employee initiates the termination of the contract of employment, it is necessary to consider whether that ostensible act of termination was given freely and without any undue pressure. If the ostensible resignation is, in effect, a response to, and consistent with, a desire by an employer that such resignation be forthcoming, then what has occurred may be that termination has been brought about by the employer and that in this way the employee has been dismissed.

This circumstance is referred to as a ‘constructive dismissal’ or a ‘forced resignation’ and is an unlawful termination of the contract of employment in circumstances where the employee leaves, without an express act or enunciation of ‘dismissal’ by the employer. It will be taken to be a dismissal (hence the word ‘constructive’) if the employer has behaved towards the employee in a way that entitles the employee to treat the employment as at an end.

The onus is on the employee to prove that they did not resign voluntarily. The employee must provide that the employer forced their resignation. See Australian Hearing v Peary [2009] AIRCFB 680.

The concept here is that there is implied in a contract of employment a term that the employer will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated or highly likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee. Breach of that implied term will entitle the employee to treat himself or herself as wrongfully dismissed.

A longstanding authority in relation to this matter is Mohazbad v Dick Smith Electronics [1995] IRCA 272, in which it is stated that ‘an important feature is that the act of the employer results directly or consequentially in the termination of employment and the employment relationship is not voluntarily left by the employee. That is, had the employer not taken the action it did, the employee would have remained in the employment relationship’.

See also O’Meara v Stanley Works Pty Ltd [2006] AIRCFB PR973462 (11 August 2006); Burazin v Blacktown City Guardian (1996) 142 ALR 144; Easling v Mahoney Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd [2001] SASC 22; Blaikie v SA Superannuation Board (1996) 65 SASR 85; Thomson v Orica Australia Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 939 (30 July 2002); Allison v Bega Valley Council (1995) 63 IR 68.