Zak Hardaker

[nottinghamtiger]

Interesting that there was a note in the RL paper this morning stating that there's a legal precedence for us to sue for a breach of contract and ensure that a transfer fee plus compensation is payable from his new club.....

Yep. All comes down to who made the first breach of contract.
In this case, it seems clear it was Hardaker as taking a banned substance would clearly be a breach of his contract.
There are a few problems though:
1. Does he have any money?
2. Can we prove his breach of contract cost us money? To win an ET you need to prove actual financial loss. It could be argued that we have actually financially gained as we don’t need to pay him any more. IF he signs elsewhere
3. We can’t sue his future club. I doubt we have any claim that another club has induced him into breaching his contract.

He’s probably in breach of contract, but I can’t see us getting anything.
Jon Wells does have a good knowledge of this kind of thing though..,,,

[tigerfeat]

Interesting piece by danny lockwood i thought , things may not be quite so cut and dryed as thought

[Dazzyb]

People have their opinions and some say he’s defo signed for Wigan, as for me. I think he will be back at Cas when his ban is up.

[HuddsTigers]

Interesting that there was a note in the RL paper this morning stating that there's a legal precedence for us to sue for a breach of contract and ensure that a transfer fee plus compensation is payable from his new club.....

Yep. All comes down to who made the first breach of contract.
In this case, it seems clear it was Hardaker as taking a banned substance would clearly be a breach of his contract.
There are a few problems though:
1. Does he have any money?
2. Can we prove his breach of contract cost us money? To win an ET you need to prove actual financial loss. It could be argued that we have actually financially gained as we don’t need to pay him any more. IF he signs elsewhere
3. We can’t sue his future club. I doubt we have any claim that another club has induced him into breaching his contract.

He’s probably in breach of contract, but I can’t see us getting anything.
Jon Wells does have a good knowledge of this kind of thing though..,,,

The piece was saying his new club would be payable, presumably through any future contract he has. Eg if he gets paid £50k a year, we will look to take money from that income until the appropriate fee is paid.

[gateman]

I know ZAK is no longer our problem, but I can not understand the length of time its taking from when the offence was committed to his appearance in front of the people that deal with these maters you will say his sentence will start from when the offence was committed but I think it still takes too long

[nottinghamtiger]

Interesting that there was a note in the RL paper this morning stating that there's a legal precedence for us to sue for a breach of contract and ensure that a transfer fee plus compensation is payable from his new club.....

Yep. All comes down to who made the first breach of contract.
In this case, it seems clear it was Hardaker as taking a banned substance would clearly be a breach of his contract.
There are a few problems though:
1. Does he have any money?
2. Can we prove his breach of contract cost us money? To win an ET you need to prove actual financial loss. It could be argued that we have actually financially gained as we don’t need to pay him any more. IF he signs elsewhere
3. We can’t sue his future club. I doubt we have any claim that another club has induced him into breaching his contract.

He’s probably in breach of contract, but I can’t see us getting anything.
Jon Wells does have a good knowledge of this kind of thing though..,,,

The piece was saying his new club would be payable, presumably through any future contract he has. Eg if he gets paid £50k a year, we will look to take money from that income until the appropriate fee is paid.

I’ve not read the article, but I don’t think there is any way we could take any new club to court. You can’t dismiss someone and then take any future employer to court I’m afraid. Completely different to the Solomona case when there was evidence he was induced to breach his contract.
Any claim against Hardaker would normally need to be made within three months of the end of his dismissal. As such, it would be unlikely we could take him to court if he signs for another club unless he does so very quickly.

[betts21]

Didn’t Chelsea sue Adrian mutu?

[takethetwo]

Didn’t Chelsea sue Adrian mutu?

But Adrian Mutu was a star footballer earning at least 50k a week . He was worth suing.

[nottinghamtiger]

Didn’t Chelsea sue Adrian mutu?

They did indeed. They also tried to sue his subsequent clubs, but didn’t succeed.
Interestingly Chelsea won the argument that Mutu was not only liable for compensating the club for the money they paid for him, but also the money it cost to replace him.
However, I doubt Hardaker has £150k to compensate for the fee we paid, let alone money to cover the cost of his replacement.

[gateman]

You are right I cant see ZAK having much money to play with at this moment in time if all the tales are true the lad as some very expensive habits

[TT Tiger]

Didn’t Chelsea sue Adrian mutu?

They did indeed. They also tried to sue his subsequent clubs, but didn’t succeed.
Interestingly Chelsea won the argument that Mutu was not only liable for compensating the club for the money they paid for him, but also the money it cost to replace him.
However, I doubt Hardaker has £150k to compensate for the fee we paid, let alone money to cover the cost of his replacement.

Maybe not in cash but his assets will be

[nottinghamtiger]

Didn’t Chelsea sue Adrian mutu?

They did indeed. They also tried to sue his subsequent clubs, but didn’t succeed.
Interestingly Chelsea won the argument that Mutu was not only liable for compensating the club for the money they paid for him, but also the money it cost to replace him.
However, I doubt Hardaker has £150k to compensate for the fee we paid, let alone money to cover the cost of his replacement.

Maybe not in cash but his assets will be

Assets? He is (was) a rugby league player, not a footballer. And one with an expensive taste in clothes, holidays and “lifestyle”.
I’m guessing here, but I doubt he has the cash to own a house without a mortgage and the vast majority of RL players can only rent as mortgage companies don’t see them as having a particularly stable or long-term income.

[TT Tiger]

On 100k a year and can’t afford a house? I very much doubt it even with expensive holidays and clothes

[nottinghamtiger]

On 100k a year and can’t afford a house? I very much doubt it even with expensive holidays and clothes

He might be on 100k a year, but after tax that will be approx 65k.
He also won’t have always been on that kind of salary.
Even on that level of income, it would be difficult to save enough cash to buy a property outright, even in Featherstone.
Particularly when you are spending lots of it living the life of a high-end banker (note the rhyming slang there).
He also has the mentality of a small child. I doubt saving for the future has even occurred to him yet.

[HuddsTigers]

Interesting that there was a note in the RL paper this morning stating that there's a legal precedence for us to sue for a breach of contract and ensure that a transfer fee plus compensation is payable from his new club.....

Yep. All comes down to who made the first breach of contract.
In this case, it seems clear it was Hardaker as taking a banned substance would clearly be a breach of his contract.
There are a few problems though:
1. Does he have any money?
2. Can we prove his breach of contract cost us money? To win an ET you need to prove actual financial loss. It could be argued that we have actually financially gained as we don’t need to pay him any more. IF he signs elsewhere
3. We can’t sue his future club. I doubt we have any claim that another club has induced him into breaching his contract.

He’s probably in breach of contract, but I can’t see us getting anything.
Jon Wells does have a good knowledge of this kind of thing though..,,,

The piece was saying his new club would be payable, presumably through any future contract he has. Eg if he gets paid £50k a year, we will look to take money from that income until the appropriate fee is paid.

I’ve not read the article, but I don’t think there is any way we could take any new club to court. You can’t dismiss someone and then take any future employer to court I’m afraid. Completely different to the Solomona case when there was evidence he was induced to breach his contract.
Any claim against Hardaker would normally need to be made within three months of the end of his dismissal. As such, it would be unlikely we could take him to court if he signs for another club unless he does so very quickly.

You wouldn't be taking the club to court, you'd be taking Hardaker to court and suing him for the cost of the transfer fee and compensation against any future earnings.

So we could sue Hardaker for say £200k, of which is payable to the club in a repayment plan across the term of his next contract and future earnings (presumably), e.g. if it finds in our favour Hardaker would have to pay us £10k per month for the next 20 months for example.

[nottinghamtiger]

Interesting that there was a note in the RL paper this morning stating that http://www.bishopg.ac.uk/about/governan ... rocedures/..

Yep. All comes down to who made the first breach of contract.
In this case, it seems clear it was Hardaker as taking a banned substance would clearly be a breach of his contract.
There are a few problems though:
1. Does he have any money?
2. Can we prove his breach of contract cost us money? To win an ET you need to prove actual financial loss. It could be argued that we have actually financially gained as we don’t need to pay him any more. IF he signs elsewhere
3. We can’t sue his future club. I doubt we have any claim that another club has induced him into breaching his contract.

He’s probably in breach of contract, but I can’t see us getting anything.
Jon Wells does have a good knowledge of this kind of thing though..,,,

The piece was saying his new club would be payable, presumably through any future contract he has. Eg if he gets paid £50k a year, we will look to take money from that income until the appropriate fee is paid.

I’ve not read the article, but I don’t think there is any way we could take any new club to court. You can’t dismiss someone and then take any future employer to court I’m afraid. Completely different to the Solomona case when there was evidence he was induced to breach his contract.
Any claim against Hardaker would normally need to be made within three months of the end of his dismissal. As such, it would be unlikely we could take him to court if he signs for another club unless he does so very quickly.

You wouldn't be taking the club to court, you'd be taking Hardaker to court and suing him for the cost of the transfer fee and compensation against any future earnings.

So we could sue Hardaker for say £200k, of which is payable to the club in a repayment plan across the term of his next contract and future earnings (presumably), e.g. if it finds in our favour Hardaker would have to pay us £10k per month for the next 20 months for example.

But you said “there's a legal precedence for us to sue for a breach of contract and ensure that a transfer fee plus compensation is payable from his new club.....”. I pointed out this wasn’t likely.

[TT Tiger]

On 100k a year and can’t afford a house? I very much doubt it even with expensive holidays and clothes

He might be on 100k a year, but after tax that will be approx 65k.
He also won’t have always been on that kind of salary.
Even on that level of income, it would be difficult to save enough cash to buy a property outright, even in Featherstone.
Particularly when you are spending lots of it living the life of a high-end banker (note the rhyming slang there).
He also has the mentality of a small child. I doubt saving for the future has even occurred to him yet.

When at the rhinos they work with a heavy bonus scheme, did he win 5 titles and 2 challenge cups as well as a world club Challenge and a MoS. Part of the transfer fee paid will have also gone to him. Leeds allow players to be self employed and advise them to have image rights so they get money every time their image is used the get royalties. He will have been taking home more than 100k fo the last how many years I don’t know.

[nottinghamtiger]

On 100k a year and can’t afford a house? I very much doubt it even with expensive holidays and clothes

He might be on 100k a year, but after tax that will be approx 65k.
He also won’t have always been on that kind of salary.
Even on that level of income, it would be difficult to save enough cash to buy a property outright, even in Featherstone.
Particularly when you are spending lots of it living the life of a high-end banker (note the rhyming slang there).
He also has the mentality of a small child. I doubt saving for the future has even occurred to him yet.

When at the rhinos they work with a heavy bonus scheme, did he win 5 titles and 2 challenge cups as well as a world club Challenge and a MoS. Part of the transfer fee paid will have also gone to him. Leeds allow players to be self employed and advise them to have image rights so they get money every time their image is used the get royalties. He will have been taking home more than 100k fo the last how many years I don’t know.

Leeds won’t work on massive bonuses as they are counted within the salary cap.
Even part of his transfer fee won’t buy a house.
I’ve not seen his image on anything that isn’t club related, and they won’t pay him image rights! His image is hardy one most companies would want to be associated with anyway.

[HuddsTigers]

The piece was saying his new club would be payable, presumably through any future contract he has. Eg if he gets paid £50k a year, we will look to take money from that income until the appropriate fee is paid.

I’ve not read the article, but I don’t think there is any way we could take any new club to court. You can’t dismiss someone and then take any future employer to court I’m afraid. Completely different to the Solomona case when there was evidence he was induced to breach his contract.
Any claim against Hardaker would normally need to be made within three months of the end of his dismissal. As such, it would be unlikely we could take him to court if he signs for another club unless he does so very quickly.

You wouldn't be taking the club to court, you'd be taking Hardaker to court and suing him for the cost of the transfer fee and compensation against any future earnings.

So we could sue Hardaker for say £200k, of which is payable to the club in a repayment plan across the term of his next contract and future earnings (presumably), e.g. if it finds in our favour Hardaker would have to pay us £10k per month for the next 20 months for example.

But you said “there's a legal precedence for us to sue for a breach of contract and ensure that a transfer fee plus compensation is payable from his new club.....”. I pointed out this wasn’t likely.

And I've clarified what that means - his new club will be paying him. Ergo, the money will come from them via Hardaker's salary. Does that make sense now?

[yorky]

And I've clarified what that means - his new club will be paying him. Ergo, the money will come from them via Hardaker's salary. Does that make sense now?

so Hudds, do you think we will recoup some of our losses?