Agreed hausmon.
And imagine if we had to pay real membership prices to watch Jets games these days. Holey dooley.
Reckon we'd be witnessing quite a few 4,000 person games right about now.
Printable View
Agreed hausmon.
And imagine if we had to pay real membership prices to watch Jets games these days. Holey dooley.
Reckon we'd be witnessing quite a few 4,000 person games right about now.
What do you make of the licence fee and the lack of process and guidelines as to how that was applied to Tinks? By rights he shouldn't have a leg to stand on but I can see this as a potential argument in any injunction.
With Con he never paid a cent for it so I can see the issue of property rights and what Tinkler bought for his money being an issue. Tinkler could prove that regs within the participation agreement are being applied to him unfairly as opposed to others. An example being the unpaid Super being part of the liabilities when the gypos down the road have been doing the same.
The other point I think he will argue in favour of his injunction will be that the actions he is taking are normal administrative functions such as replacing poorly performing staff. Clive completely shot himself in the foot by attempting to set up his Football Australia. It could easily be concluded the damage he was causing to the HAL as he openly was trying to replace the governing body.
Simply put, its a franchise league with the FFA acting as the holder of the IP rights for each franchise and a very strict legal document dictating the franchisees roles and responsibilities. The breaches won't be looked at in isolation, the FFA will be able to draw examples of previous tax debts and wind up applications, as evidence that they have tried working through the issues with the franchise owner and that he continually strays from the club participation agreement and that this culminated in the current crisis position of the club forcing the FFA to revoke the license to protect their IP and minimise any further damage to the club, the IP and ensure compliance of the clubs & FFA's contractual obligations under the CBA.
It could be argued that Tinkler got what he paid for, an established club, with contracted players, an active membership base to build from and a previous championship winning club. That's a hell of a lot more to start with then what con had. Con was starting fresh building the franchise, ultimately he was going to face more challenges establishing the brand and building a memebership base and the cost implications for that process. Any one can see that value had been built into the FFA's IP based on the work that con had done, if con had not breached his license terms he would have been within his rights to sell the license with a value based on what he'd built. Once the FFA revoked the license it still held a value and of course if you have a buyer willing to pay your asking price you sell.
The value of anything is the maximum a purchaser is willing to spend end of, Tinkler agreed and was willing.
The only thing that muddies the water, in my eyes, is the fact that Ken Edwards was involved on both sides and was rumoured to receive a commission from the FFA pending the successful sale, conflict of interest yes, but I dare say Ken Edwards was involved with the FFA pitching the sale prior to jumping into bed with Tinks, so again just more evidence of Tinkler not doing his due diligence.
https://twitter.com/theworldgame/sta...30599077920769
Explosive stuff.
Serious question. Who are Tink's lawyers? Who'd work for him?
http://api.news.com.au/content/1.0/c...ne&size=medium
When he says that the FFA helped clubs behind closed doors does he not remember what happened to Con? He went to them cap in hand and had the license taken off him. They didn't want Con to have the license anymore. Same case here.
Anyway, can we take it from Tink's outburst and legal threats that he has no means of achieving the FFA demands and we just have to wait the 14 days for a resolution?
I'm too impatient to wait 2 weeks, find another way ffa
Exactly, but in the meantime law firm becomes 'spokesman' gets on the Tele, pumps their own tyres.
Case gets settled out of court, therefore law firm 'wins' (well, they don't lose) and they can hang at the club all like 'so baby, you see me on the steps of the Supreme Court today?'
It's why lawyers defend shitcunce like cop killers, terrorists and Martin Bryant.
**** lawyers.
Worst people.