Re: Barlows lack of class : Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:17 pm  

brummie-eagle wrote:

Pretty sure it was a breach of contract, Halifax apologised and settled out of court, I think Taverner's post sums it up well about the bloke, who is perfect amiable when you meet him away from the pitch.

His contract release had been negotiated.

It was a written agreement at the time of his contract release.

The RFL did rule Sam could play for Halifax.

Still at the very least not ethical and in my opinion Eagles were absolutley right in contesting it.

Not only would this have affected them in the short term but it would have sent out the wrong message to others with the potential to open the flood gates for players and clubs just doing what they liked.

Re: Barlows lack of class : Wed Aug 21, 2013 4:12 pm  

faxcar wrote:

His contract release had been negotiated.

It was a written agreement at the time of his contract release.

The RFL did rule Sam could play for Halifax.

Still at the very least not ethical and in my opinion Eagles were absolutley right in contesting it.

Not only would this have affected them in the short term but it would have sent out the wrong message to others with the potential to open the flood gates for players and clubs just doing what they liked.

Right or wrong ,I heard he paid for his own release, may-be he did the same with us?

Re: Barlows lack of class : Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:03 pm  

I'll say again, I like Sam. I just don't think he got this right.

An oral contract is just as valid as a written contract. They're just harder to prove.

A condition in the contract that, for example, Sam couldn't play against us, is part of the contract and is not outside it.

My understanding is that the action was against Sam, not Fax.

The fact that a settlement was paid suggests that there was an admission of fault. Draw your own conclusions about whether the contract was written or oral.

Re: Barlows lack of class : Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:05 pm  

Yes his release was sorted between Sam and the Eagles.

No doubt with the knowledge that he had something sorted with us and that's why after his contract was terminated they drew up the written agreement to not have him play against them.

The reason the RFL allowed Sam to play for us against them was because it was an agreement between Sam and the Eagles and as such did not come under their jurisdiction.

That's why if it had not been negotiated between the two clubs it would have gone to the courts and not an RFL tribunal.

To me Sam was in the wrong for back tracking on a written agreement and not breaching a contract that he had been realesed from and no longer existed.

Fax looked after their own interests at the time in playing him in the vital game ignoring what Sam and the Eagles had agreed and then dealing with it later.

This is how I remember it, does it matter, no but it may as well be accurate otherwise what's the point.

Re: Barlows lack of class : Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:31 pm  

griff1998 wrote:

I'll say again, I like Sam. I just don't think he got this right.

An oral contract is just as valid as a written contract. They're just harder to prove.

A condition in the contract that, for example, Sam couldn't play against us, is part of the contract and is not outside it.

My understanding is that the action was against Sam, not Fax.

The fact that a settlement was paid suggests that there was an admission of fault. Draw your own conclusions about whether the contract was written or oral.

.
"An oral contract is as good as the paper it's written on."
Move on.

Re: Barlows lack of class : Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:55 pm  

halifaxjohn wrote:

.
"An oral contract is as good as the paper it's written on."
Move on.

John , Charlie needs his glasses changing , i thought you said Oral Contact .You had me worried .

Re: Barlows lack of class : Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:21 pm  

griff1998 wrote:

I'll say again, I like Sam. I just don't think he got this right.

An oral contract is just as valid as a written contract. They're just harder to prove.

A condition in the contract that, for example, Sam couldn't play against us, is part of the contract and is not outside it.

My understanding is that the action was against Sam, not Fax.

The fact that a settlement was paid suggests that there was an admission of fault. Draw your own conclusions about whether the contract was written or oral.

Do tell us you meant *verbal* and not *oral* Griffster

Re: Barlows lack of class : Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:14 pm  

charlie caroli wrote:

John , Charlie needs his glasses changing , i thought you said Oral Contact .You had me worried .

Now now Charlie, oral contact for me is either a bag of chips or a pint.

Re: Barlows lack of class : Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:29 pm  

griff1998 wrote:

An oral contract is just as valid as a written contract. They're just harder to prove.

I'd say they're "impossible" to prove.