St George Illawarra chase compensation over Tim Moltzen cont

[Joel Helmes]

I probably sound like a traitor here but the Wests Tigers would be doing exactly the same if the shoe was on the other foot.

I personally feel the Dragons have every right to compensation for what has been a massive shambles. Out of the four parties involved (Tigers, Dragons, Manager and Moltzen) I honestly think the Dragons are worthy of the least blame.

WTF?

Please explain.

My understanding of the 'facts' (I use the term facts very loosely) is as follows:

- Tim Moltzen is told to look elsewhere for season 2012.
- Tauber negotiates contracts with clubs, under the direction that Moltzen is free to move in 2012\. Moltzen is offered a contract by the Dragons, who are under the understanding that Moltzen is allowed to move in 2012.
- KEY POINT Moltzen and Tauber sign a contract with the Dragons for the 2012 season. The only logical explanation for this occurring is that Moltzen and Tauber were under no illusion in terms of his release for 2012.
- At this point, how have the Dragons done anything wrong? As far as I am concerned all four parties are of the 'understanding' that Moltzen could play at another club in 2012\. The signing of release papers should be a mere formality. The Tigers reportly have their knickers in a knot because the Dragons announced the signing before the Tigers had a chance to announce anything, or sign a release. I personally feel this is just saving face and gamesmanship on the Tigers behalf - if they had a real issue with Molzten leaving there would have been a much bigger blow-up then a single media release from the CEO.
- Tauber and the Tigers should have had a better understanding of what the scenario was before any negotiations and contract signing took place. The Dragons are not privy to what the scenario is, they are simply buying a player who they belief will be off contract.
- Months go by, Dragons have signed Moltzen, they have released key players and are building a side in 2012 around Moltzen.
- Lui incident.
- Moltzen wants to stay a Tiger.
- The rest is history…

Why have the Tigers told Molzten and Tauber to look elsewhere if they were never going to release him? Why did Moltzen sign with the Dragons if he 'never wanted to go to the Dragons'? Why did Tauber negotiate and allow the signing of a contract if Moltzen was never released? If the Tigers were so hard done by, why didn't they attempt to fix the situation at the time?

The Dragons are innocent by-standers, none the wiser - and I will forever maintain that none of this would have ever happened if we didn't all of a sudden find a bit more space in our line up for 2012.

You can give me all the legal mumbo jumbo - doesn't change the fact that the whole situation stunk to high heaven and the Tigers were dragged through the mud a result. Am I saying they are solely to blame? No - but unfortunately they are more to blame than the Dragons.

I have taken the Tigers coloured glasses off for this one - I feel this is an objective viewpoint.

That is a great post Centaur, look we dont know what was said and how it was said in the meetings between the parties but that's how it appears to me.

Why didn't we just say back when Tim signed with the Dragons - "hang on we haven't given you a release".

It was all done when it was clear we were going to be Luiless in 2012!

 

[Yossarian]

I probably sound like a traitor here but the Wests Tigers would be doing exactly the same if the shoe was on the other foot.

I personally feel the Dragons have every right to compensation for what has been a massive shambles. Out of the four parties involved (Tigers, Dragons, Manager and Moltzen) I honestly think the Dragons are worthy of the least blame.

Sounds like a fair assessment of the situation to me.

I remember pretty much all and sundry spitting chips over a nobody called Jordan Kahu who may turn out to be a good player. This is over a established player and the Dragons feelings are understandable.

The best way they can get compensation is by keeping this story rolling as long as possible as a reminder to all other parties in the NRL that this is what you can expect when dealing with WT as that will cause more damage to the WT brand in the long term

As I understand it, Kahu actually signed a contract when he was free to do so. Brisbane then became involved (in a capacity that was never adequately explained) and he sought to have his WT contract torn up. Moltzen on the otherhand was never actually free to sign anything.

From my angle they've got zero case against the WT. Tauber probably but not WT.

 

[adamtiger]

The dragqueens are the innocent victims really but really it just shows what everyone has been saying for years, the nrl clubs are poorly managed and have poor administration, its not a done deal until a realese form is given with the contract… why wasnt that chased up straight away by the dragons side? regardless of what molzten does its not a valid contract till the realese document is handed over to the new club they should never have announced it until the form was handed over...

They are the victims of all this but dumb victims in my opinion

 

[tigersrule4life]

Well they are still wasting our time lets move on and get set for a huge 2012 season.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

The dragqueens are the innocent victims really but really it just shows what everyone has been saying for years, the nrl clubs are poorly managed and have poor administration, its not a done deal until a realese form is given with the contract… why wasnt that chased up straight away by the dragons side? regardless of what molzten does its not a valid contract till the realese document is handed over to the new club they should never have announced it until the form was handed over...

**They are the victims of all this but dumb victims in my opinion**

Bingo. Their undoing is due to Doust's failure to do due diligence.

I would liken it to someone who gets in a car with a drunk driver behind the wheel, and the when the driver wraps the car around a tree and renders them a paraplegic, they think they have the right to complain.

"But he swore he was a good driver when he's drunk…"

 

[T-D-C]

Actually we did tell the Dragons and the Media that he wasn't released when they announced his signing in July.

Proves the Dragons did know about Tim note being released in June. No need for Compensation there since it looks like the just stuck their fingers in their ears and didn't want to hear that we did not release him

http://www.weststigers.com.au/default.aspx?s=newsdisplay&id=38962
>
In reference to the announcement made by St George Illawarra Dragons of the signing of Tim Moltzen, Wests Tigers CEO Stephen Humphreys said:
>
“The fact that the Dragons made the announcement this afternoon has come as a complete surprise to us,’’ Humphreys said.
>
“We are extremely disappointed that they chose this course of action without any co-ordination or agreement with us.
>
**“We have been in discussions with Tim Moltzen’s manager regarding his future but at this point have not formally agreed to release him from the final year of his playing contract with Wests Tigers.**
>
“The action by the Dragons to make this announcement prematurely and without reference to us is arrogant and disrespectful to our Club and to Tim Moltzen.
>
“The fact that they made it on the eve of our game tonight is just plain poor form.”

 

[Demonborger]

St Merge deserve nothing.

 

[happy_tiger]

I can't believe there are some that still support the Saints on this subject
If the Saints were in the right do you honestly think they would of pulled out and let Moltzen go
Read all the official club comments about this not one says we would release Moltzen
To those who still think the Saints are right maybe they should become Saints supporters as well
I am a businessman and if I had the opportunity to put a competitor at a disadvantage because of their own stupidity I would without blinking an eyelid
Or those who support the Saints on this do you think I should turn around and say "Its OK I realise you are a pack of morons and I will give you a leg up on equal footing with me"

So what the Tigers have done is simple they let the Saints think Moltzen was going to them knowing full well that they had the upper hand in the dealing and thus preventing the Dragons purchasing another player which will put them at a disadvantage for the next season
This is reality and this is business and the Saints are a pack of fools

 

[LaT]

Dragons agreed to let Shuey decide Moltzens fate, same as we did. But before they decision was handed down Dragons pulled out saying they were no longer pursuing it and Moltzen could stay.

They can't turn around and demand compensation.

Dragons have a right to feel hard done by, but they handled it badly and hindsight is always 20/20\. Its a fair jump to think we some how owe them compensation.

They are just pissing into the wind on this one.

 

[Centaur]

I can't believe there are some that still support the Saints on this subject
**If the Saints were in the right do you honestly think they would of pulled out and let Moltzen go**
Read all the official club comments about this not one says we would release Moltzen
To those who still think the Saints are right maybe they should become Saints supporters as well
I am a businessman and if I had the opportunity to put a competitor at a disadvantage because of their own stupidity I would without blinking an eyelid
Or those who support the Saints on this do you think I should turn around and say "Its OK I realise you are a pack of morons and I will give you a leg up on equal footing with me"

**So what the Tigers have done is simple they let the Saints think Moltzen was going to them knowing full well that they had the upper hand in the dealing and thus preventing the Dragons purchasing another player which will put them at a disadvantage for the next season**
This is reality and this is business and the Saints are a pack of fools

You have got to be kidding? What utter garbage.

Tauber and Moltzen held St George to ransom - "I don' want to play for the Dragons", "I will sit out for the season", "my heart is with the Tigers". NO club, in their right mind, would want to have player with that attitude within 50 foot of the club. The decision to withdraw the contract for Moltzen would have had barely anything to do with with who was right and who was wrong.

As for your claim suggesting the Tigers purposely shafted the Dragons for next season by stalling a fight for Moltzen - I mostly certainly hope not. That is sabotage, unethical, grubby, unwarranted and against everything good the game of rugby league stands for.

If this is your idea of reality and business - I think you need to stop reading about the Alan Bonds, Christopher Skases and Eddy Groves of this world.

 

[LaT]

Moltzen never said he was going to sit out the year, that was a quote the DT tried to attribute to him from a "close source". Moltzen came out and denied he was ever going to sit out, he also said he would go to Dragons if that was what the NRL decided.

 

[happy_tiger]

Well Centaur if the Dragons thought they were right why didn't they wait for Schubert's decision and then use that as a bargaining tool against the Tigers

And how did the Tigers shaft the Dragons the imbecile Dragons shafted themselves if anything Tauber has played his part you are right there but the Dragons are the ones in the wrong in all of this and if you think otherwise then maybe I should organize a Red V package for you in 2012 .

 

[Centaur]

Well Centaur if the Dragons thought they were right why didn't they wait for Schubert's decision and then use that as a bargaining tool against the Tigers

And how did the Tigers shaft the Dragons the imbecile Dragons shafted themselves if anything Tauber has played his part you are right there but the Dragons are the ones in the wrong in all of this and if you think otherwise then maybe I should organize a Red V package for you in 2012 .

Sigh.

What a waste of time and effort. :crazy

 

[Tigersmurf]

Happy I dont think that is a fair call. When you look through all the smoke and mirrors that have gone on since, I think it is fair to say that the Tigers had every intention to release Moltzen and gave him permission to negotiate with other clubs. I am sure the manager would have approached the dragons in the knowledge that this was the case and as they needed a fullback to replace Boyd they signed him up.

The Tigers are not without fault. When did they decide to keep Moltzen is the question and I am happy to accept that this was likely before the Lui issue. Maybe Humphrey's decided to not release Moltzen after the Dragons statement on the day of our game. I prefer to think he intended to let Moltzen go but the board overruled him - maybe for the reason I just mentioned.

The Tigers were happy to let him go. The Dragons lost out because they didn't follow protocol and signed him without a formal release form from the Tigers.

It should have been resolved once the crap blew up when the Dragons made the press release. In any respect it was a mess but I don't see how there are grounds to sue.

 

[PrattenParkMagpie]

Why have the Tigers told Molzten and Tauber to look elsewhere if they were never going to release him?

Because you need to free up $x, not knowing who may get offers and who may not you choose 4 or 5 players who collectively are on $y which is above the $x needed to free up, because you only really need to shed 2 or 3 of those players you allow them to test the waters to see if they can get interest by other clubs but to come back and formally get a release from the club if and when there was a genuine offer from the other club.

**Possible scenario**

You need to free up $400,000

Player 1 is on $200,000
Player 2 is on $150,000
Player 3 is on $120,000
Player 4 is on $120,000
Player 5 is on $80,000

Collectively you don’t need to shed all 5 players to save the $400,000 required, just 2 or 3 up to the value of $400,000, however you don’t know which ones will attract interest from rival clubs and which ones wont and you don’t have the time to allow the players to look elsewhere one by one so you allow them all to look at their options with the proviso that they come back to the club for a formal release before they actually sign the new contract, so 3 players do find offers and you grant them the releases and now you don’t need to release any more because you have shed the amount required but a fourth player signs elsewhere without telling the club and getting the required release, now his new club announces the signing without ever communicating with the players current club and the first that the current club knows about the signing is from an email and a media release on game day.

 

[Yossarian]

Why have the Tigers told Molzten and Tauber to look elsewhere if they were never going to release him?

Because you need to free up $x, not knowing who may get offers and who may not you choose 4 or 5 players who collectively are on $y which is above the $x needed to free up, because you only really need to shed 2 or 3 of those players you allow them to test the waters to see if they can get interest by other clubs but to come back and formally get a release from the club if and when there was a genuine offer from the other club.

Correct. Permission to talk is a precursor to signing, it is not the permission to sign elsewhere. It's like putting your house on the market and being obliged to accept any offer. Yes it is highly unusual a club would grant someone permission to talk to other clubs and then not grant a release but it is not illegal. Yes St Geo-Ill can feel annoyed and hard done by but that's hardly grounds for legal action otherwise we'd all have a class action against the NRL referees.

 

[system]

They won't win any law suits. I agree on that but they win a far greater victory by dragging the Wests Tigers name through the dirt by constant media spotlight on the highly convoluted and suspect way in which WT, Moltzen and Tauber carried themselves throughout this fiasco.

I suspect WT will arrange some compensation to make this issue go away as there are column inches to fill before the season starts and this story is a stayer and the club is open to having their name dragged through the mud repeatedly if it is not resolved

 

[GNR4LIFE]

I call them merge as most of their fans are in complete denial ofthis fact!!
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED

Which is why calling them the Steelers is a more accurate insult

 

[Centaur]

Why have the Tigers told Molzten and Tauber to look elsewhere if they were never going to release him?

Because you need to free up $x, not knowing who may get offers and who may not you choose 4 or 5 players who collectively are on $y which is above the $x needed to free up, because you only really need to shed 2 or 3 of those players you allow them to test the waters to see if they can get interest by other clubs but to come back and formally get a release from the club if and when there was a genuine offer from the other club.

Correct. Permission to talk is a precursor to signing, it is not the permission to sign elsewhere. It's like putting your house on the market and being obliged to accept any offer. Yes it is highly unusual a club would grant someone permission to talk to other clubs and then not grant a release but it is not illegal. Yes St Geo-Ill can feel annoyed and hard done by but that's hardly grounds for legal action otherwise we'd all have a class action against the NRL referees.

None of this changes the fact that the Tigers were prepared to release Tim Moltzen at the point they allowed him to talk to other clubs.

It's not they have said "Hey Tim, for the fun of it, why don't you go see what you are worth on the market? Odds are there will be a couple of clubs that are prepared to pay you much more than we are going to pay you - but oh well - we are just going to laugh and refuse a release when you come back to us with an offer".

 

[Swannie47]

They also hate it when you tell them that their club has won the same number of premierships as the Wests Tigers. I'm not sure what part of merged entity they don't understand.

Like Wests and Balmain, St George will never win another premiership.

As for the Moltzen saga, the only thing I'll say is, what would our reaction be if we signed Josh Dugan and Canberra reneged on releasing him. While Canberra would have done nothing illegal, I'd imagine we'd be all be pissed off.
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED