(Archived) THE RUMOUR MILL - Player Movement

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
13,403
Reaction score
961
Location
victoria
Is it to simple a view..To think this whole legal furore could have been avoided... If he was allowed to come in talked crap for 5min say he was sorry won't do it again yada yada, walked out then we sacked him 10 min later...
 
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
28,394
Reaction score
737
Location
NSW
There was talk of him being on his last chance prior to this incident. If he was, then any dirty laundry can now be aired to the court.

Apparently so, although his management said he was never offered breach notices for anything prior.

Seriously give carney a 3 mil payout he will be found dead from a coke binge within a week
 

CrankyShark

T Roll
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
3,517
Reaction score
6
he gave up his privacy argument the moment he decided to get his dick out, piss in his own mouth, in a public toilet, whilst being filmed on another persons phone.
Whether he gave up his privacy as you say is a matter of law. I don't know whether he did legally or not as I'm not a lawyer. I personally feel his privacy was violated in a terrible way, others don't. I'm interested to know.
 

CrankyShark

T Roll
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
3,517
Reaction score
6
It's ridiculous. He was going to get the sack whether he fronted the board or not so he hasn't lost any money. I wish I could be a judge for a week.
The legal position on whether or not we had the right to sack him over what was the final straw was what needed to be checked with lawyers before sacking him. I don't think being sacked without due process is the only problem.
 

sharkiesboomboomboom

Tiger Shark
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,277
Reaction score
31
Location
Taree,NSW
Whether he gave up his privacy as you say is a matter of law. I don't know whether he did legally or not as I'm not a lawyer. I personally feel his privacy was violated in a terrible way, others don't. I'm interested to know.

I don't think his privacy being violated is relevant to his case. The Sharks certainly didn't violate his privacy. His case seems to be based on whether or not we followed due process in getting rid. His mate put the photo out there in the public domain. We could hardly ignore it. We should've hauled him in to discuss it with him before sacking him though.
 

CrankyShark

T Roll
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
3,517
Reaction score
6
I don't think his privacy being violated is relevant to his case. The Sharks certainly didn't violate his privacy. His case seems to be based on whether or not we followed due process in getting rid. His mate put the photo out there in the public domain. We could hardly ignore it. We should've hauled him in to discuss it with him before sacking him though.
He definitely should have been hauled in, absolutely no question. Whilst it wasn't us who violated his privacy we made use of that violation. On the other hand as you say "We can hardly ignore it". Presumably we can argue regardless he brought the club into disrepute.

It is hard to imagine him walking off with anything near 3 million if the violation of due process would have made no difference. It is amazing how popping your wang out in a public toilet can become so complicated.
 

sharkiesboomboomboom

Tiger Shark
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,277
Reaction score
31
Location
Taree,NSW
He definitely should have been hauled in, absolutely no question. Whilst it wasn't us who violated his privacy we made use of that violation. On the other hand as you say "We can hardly ignore it". Presumably we can argue regardless he brought the club into disrepute.

It is hard to imagine him walking off with anything near 3 million if the violation of due process would have made no difference. It is amazing how popping your wang out in a public toilet can become so complicated.

We had no choice but to use the self inflicted privacy "violation'' as every Tom, Dick (excuse the pun) and Harry had seen the photo and with all the media attention regarding it and the ASADA stuff at the time, we had to take action. They just should've slowed down a tad.

As for the 3 mill, well, he hasn't got his hands on it yet. That's just what they want.
 

GymeaGorilla 72

Bronze Whaler
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
213
Reaction score
3
Location
Swill Hill
Well I hope the club gets to reveal all his indiscretions while at the club. Carney is always the victim, I actually have genuine concern for him when he finishes playing his liver will give up
 

HaroldBishop

Megalodon
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
54,873
Reaction score
7,594
Location
Sydney
Right I'm going to the bathroom here and pissing in my mouth and will grab a colleague to take a pic. Let's see where it gets me.
 

Gards

Jaws
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
18,310
Reaction score
1,811
Location
At the Tucky
I don't think his privacy being violated is relevant to his case. The Sharks certainly didn't violate his privacy. His case seems to be based on whether or not we followed due process in getting rid. His mate put the photo out there in the public domain. We could hardly ignore it. We should've hauled him in to discuss it with him before sacking him though.

As I recall the club attempted to Contact Todd multiple times after the incident went public but Todd ignored calls/didn't call back which sounds like him burying his head in the sand
By the sounds of things he did have that chance to front the club/board but didn't take it and the club couldn't sit on it's hands indefinitely if the bloke won't even bother to show up and explain himself

Maybe due process still wasn't followed I dunno but Todd's reaction to the whole saga hardly helped his own case
 

slide rule

Jaws
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
20,479
Reaction score
460
Location
General Admission
Didn't Noyce call him to ask him what he thinks should happen?

Where's the requirement to front the board? Is that supposed to be in the contract?

The CEO should have the authority from the board to sack the ****, unless it is specifically stated in the contract. I'm not sure many other employees in any other situation would front the board. It wouldn't happen at BHP or the like.
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,659
Reaction score
3,250
Location
Perth WA
We had no choice but to use the self inflicted privacy "violation'' as every Tom, Dick (excuse the pun) and Harry had seen the photo and with all the media attention regarding it and the ASADA stuff at the time, we had to take action. They just should've slowed down a tad.

As for the 3 mill, well, he hasn't got his hands on it yet. That's just what they want.

He doesn't now, but he did when the picture was taken by his "mates" and that's his problem.
Our only error is how quickly we sacked him, so we should only have to pay him (let's say) 4 weeks pay for the period classified as "Due process".
We didn't humiliate him (he and his mates did that) so if he wants the difference of 4 weeks and $3m, then he goes after his "mates" for the difference.
 

HITMAN

Bull Shark
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
10
Western Sharkie:934284 said:
We had no choice but to use the self inflicted privacy "violation'' as every Tom, Dick (excuse the pun) and Harry had seen the photo and with all the media attention regarding it and the ASADA stuff at the time, we had to take action. They just should've slowed down a tad.

As for the 3 mill, well, he hasn't got his hands on it yet. That's just what they want.

He doesn't now, but he did when the picture was taken by his "mates" and that's his problem.
Our only error is how quickly we sacked him, so we should only have to pay him (let's say) 4 weeks pay for the period classified as "Due process".
We didn't humiliate him (he and his mates did that) so if he wants the difference of 4 weeks and $3m, then he goes after his "mates" for the difference.
sounds fair for all parties, although that piss drinker doesnt deserve a dime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top