Bombertalk

Little mumourings going around that something quite incredible is going to happen.

Brisbane and the Western Bulldogs have not signed anything yet, a deal may have been struck but nothing has been signed.

Therefore Akermanis is still a Brisbane player.

There is nothing to stop Brisbane accepting a better "Aker" offer from another club, it would be the ultimate bluff and no doubt be criticised however it would be a final revenge on what Aker has done to their club.

All the Bulldogs have from Gubby Allen is "his word", a deal may be on paper, but it sure as hell aint signed yet.

This may not happen, but if it does than Brisbane would have delivered one of the best dishes served very cold in their history.

Would love to see that happen as well.
Why cant Brisbane just delist him, take the payment hit? Tt least by delisting him, he has to go in the National draft first and then the dogs have to use their pick #11 to get him.

But if they did that Rosso they would get nothing in return.

looks like he will be made to play at any club the lions wish, it had to come back and bite him in the ass eventually, he deserves it too, hope they skrew him up the tail pipe

True that. But getting a 3rd round pick is like getting nothing anyway. Isnt that like pick 38 for the dogs?

The deal will go through i think. All the law tragics out there (i know, i know....) would also know that if Brisbane did what is being suggested, they'd face legal recourse by some equitable means like an injunction or they'd be estopped from going back on their word. Sorry to be a wet blanket and ruin it for the people who think it's a possibility, but there's no way that Brisbane could do as has been suggested on this thread without facing legal recourse.

Personally, i have nothing against the Bulldogs, so if Brisbane did try to pull a swifty as is being suggested, they'd probably move up next to Carlton as my equal 2nd most hated club (behind Collingwood).

jimmyc1985 wrote:The deal will go through i think. All the law tragics out there (i know, i know....) would also know that if Brisbane did what is being suggested, they'd face legal recourse by some equitable means like an injunction or they'd be estopped from going back on their word. Sorry to be a wet blanket and ruin it for the people who think it's a possibility, but there's no way that Brisbane could do as has been suggested on this thread without facing legal recourse.

Personally, i have nothing against the Bulldogs, so if Brisbane did try to pull a swifty as is being suggested, they'd probably move up next to Carlton as my equal 2nd most hated club (behind Collingwood).

Prommissory Estoppell...ha

I remember reading that somewhere last semester.

You're probably right, I just heard from a few people today that it could happen. Like most trade week rumours it's probably wrong.

I think it would be great though if it happened.

Not because I hate the Bulldogs, I actually love them. Just to see the chaos it would create.

But jimmy, as we all know in the footy world, a contract isnt worth the paper its written on.

But Jimmy is right with the estopple. However, I dont think that sort of law can be used in this context that has separate rules of it own in regards to trading.

Let's not get bogged down in the legalities. Point is that it will go through. There's no logic in Brisbane holding out for a better deal, because it doesn't appear as though any other clubs are really keen. Plus, if they hold out, they just end up cutting of their noses to spite their faces, so to speak.

But, as RF said, it would be funny to see what would happen if they did pull the rug out from under the Bulldogs!!!

Ahhhhh trade week. It gives all the Pinocchios of this world their chance to shine!

Steve Turner verbally signed with the Gold Coast and tried to get out of it. The NRL refused to acknowledge his new Melbourne contract he tried to sign behind the scenes. From what I've heard a verbal agreement has merit

There were a few emails between club and manager to back that verbal agreement up.....

Won't happen, they've got a verbal contract.

Now the problem usually with verbal contracts is that the only parties that witness it are the ones that involved it in and if one party breaks the contract, it becomes very difficult for them to prove the breach of the verbal contract.

However, both Brisbane and the Western Bulldogs have made public statements to the media stating a deal has been made....bada bing bada boom there's your verbal contract.

Well that's at least how I would see, and I really don't have that thorough knowledge of contract law, so feel to rip me to shreads if you wish Jimmy.

ealesy wrote:Won't happen, they've got a verbal contract.

Now the problem usually with verbal contracts is that the only parties that witness it are the ones that involved it in and if one party breaks the contract, it becomes very difficult for them to prove the breach of the verbal contract.

However, both Brisbane and the Western Bulldogs have made public statements to the media stating a deal has been made....bada bing bada boom there's your verbal contract.

Well that's at least how I would see, and I really don't have that thorough knowledge of contract law, so feel to rip me to shreads if you wish Jimmy.

Shreds, Shmeds....i'm not going to be a tossbag and get bogged into semantics about the law; you're on the right track anyway. The only law i reckon you need to know in this situation, as John Kerrigan would say, is the law of bloody common sense! Brisbane and the Bulldogs have tabled a deal, they've agreed to it in principle, and they should follow through with it. And i've got no doubt they will.

Also, they can't trade Aka without his consent. And they need to free up the salary space. So they must trade/delist him, and if they trade it must be to a team he finds acceptable.

If the bullies are offering a fair deal, they'd be stupid to pass it up.

antcl wrote:Also, they can't trade Aka without his consent. And they need to free up the salary space. So they must trade/delist him, and if they trade it must be to a team he finds acceptable.

If the bullies are offering a fair deal, they'd be stupid to pass it up.

Who pays Ackers contract next year?

F111 wrote:

antcl wrote:Also, they can't trade Aka without his consent. And they need to free up the salary space. So they must trade/delist him, and if they trade it must be to a team he finds acceptable.

If the bullies are offering a fair deal, they'd be stupid to pass it up.

Who pays Ackers contract next year?

mostly the Dogs but some is still payed by the lions

ealesy wrote:Won't happen, they've got a verbal contract.

Now the problem usually with verbal contracts is that the only parties that witness it are the ones that involved it in and if one party breaks the contract, it becomes very difficult for them to prove the breach of the verbal contract.

However, both Brisbane and the Western Bulldogs have made public statements to the media stating a deal has been made....bada bing bada boom there's your verbal contract.

Well that's at least how I would see, and I really don't have that thorough knowledge of contract law, so feel to rip me to shreads if you wish Jimmy.

I'm assuming that all they have is an agreement to negotiate (maybe in good faith???), so they don't actually have a verbal contract.

But it'l go through, as jimmy's explained - if the Lions try to pull a shifty, they'll end up with some large legal fees and that's all.