Quote Maislebugs="Maislebugs"What evidence have you that MO 'did rather less well out of it than (he) would have people believe'? The piece of worthwhile evidence has come from Connor in the T and A. Not once but twice he has stated that Orford has been paid all or nearly all he demanded. Is he making it up or has someone broken the confidentiality agreement to tell him something untrue? Your thesis goes 'we'll hint to the local paper that we've paid you but we won't really'. Come on.
And yes. I do believe that as a long term season ticket holder I am entitled to some explanation as to why the club is not in a position to stand behind it's own contract. This is mine and your money and the club has a responsibility to us if they continue to ask for our support. They touted Orford as a marquee signing, not me!
Thirdly, people are saying on here with some justification 'let's move on'. The major question remains what are we moving onto? What can stop Heath, Brett from getting on the plane to Oz tomorrow because they are homesick? Even George Burgess with 2 years left on a contract appears able to tell the Bulls that he wants to go to Oz and guess what?
I'm sorry but this looks very weak.'"
I really wish we could put this to bed.
Yes it frustrates me as much as you. I'd have been quite at ease seeing him stripped of everything he owned. But I'm trying to recognise the likely realities of the situation.
I have the same evidence that you have. None. Since what I floated was a hypothetical situation to demonstrate why there could be valid circumstances to prevent the full tale being told.
Connor actually does not say Toerag has "been paid all or nearly all he demanded". The reference was to money that was already owed to him, that would have had to be paid anyway. Do you know if he had to pay any sum TO the club or concede anything else, something that is confidential? No, and neither do I. And if he DID, we'll not get to know...because its confidential. At least until the autobiographies come out.
What if, for example, Toerag claimed that his physical or mental health had suffered because of how terrible he found the English weather to be? What if he claimed the club had a duty of care to protect him from the terrible environment that is England? Ridiculous? Absolutely! But this is the sort of nonsense we see claims of every day in the papers, where tribunals make awards that seem plain ridiculous to the likes of you and me. What if this was the sort of nonsense counterclaim he put up? I have no idea WHAT counter-argument he put up, but it seems clear from what PH said that he did indeed put one up. Doubtless not as ridiculous as not liking the weather, since PH seems to be striking a conciliatory tone over it. But everything I have read points to a compromise agreement where I suspect the club found itself with limited options and at risk of counterclaim of some sort.
And if an employer splashes the terms of a confidential compromise agreement all over the media, that employer will likely face a serious action for damages.
No other employer would be likely to explain itself in the way you ask, and that includes most of the public sector in which you and I have a much more direct interest. So why should Bulls?