going round and round in circles this tread, instead of speculating why dont we just leave it to the powers that be and let them sort it,
the biggest game of ther season coming up on sunday lets concentrate on that and cheer the lads on, let this mess get sorted in the off season

COME ON FAX,

all cool apart from that last bit!!

I agree. Tonks won't get mom.

Get over it, you got totally outplayed, out classed, out smarted, out witted, and knocked out of the Comp. Same again Next year

errr.....
Faxhali....
Paul is a fev fan - I think we're still in the comp unless someone's been lying to me!!

Sorry, but we didn't know any Fev Fans had discovered the internet until about two weeks ago. We are still adjusting to it.

The way and manner Aston and Sheffield are acting, part of me is wishing they go broke soon. I doubt many fans will want to go to Sheffield next year, putting money in to Astons mitts. If he has a problem he should have gone to Barlow and Fax and then the courts. Things should have been conducted in private. There is no need for all this rubbish being spouted in the media led by Aston.

you're a cheeky monkey Nathaniel!!!!!

Whilst there's no requisite for this - I agree!



As far as I know, this is the order that Aston has taken things. Comms with Barlow and Fax were unsuccessful leaving him with only the legal route ahead!

Not mention mouthing off to the papers and on SKY. Smacks of just playing 'Billy Big B@lls" now.

In all honesty & integrity ( tubbs words not mine ) that was The Mark Aston christmas card he was tearing up

If only Fax and Barlow had responded when he did communicate......

Oooooh dear. Maybe that tells us something.

Is true!

The one thing no-one has thought of is if the player is on a match by match payment basis or an increased payment for playing then the contract would be deemed illigal under sports law as it is a restraint of trade.

The one thing ?

I think there's a few.

Personally, I'm amazed that the mods are permitting this discussion at all.

Has legal action been initiated?

If not, then discussion is still allowed. And, it will be until proceedings commence. That is, should there be any.

Should proceedings be opened, then discussion is forbidden as it will be sub judice. Until then....

Not at all as then what about suspensions and being cup tied etc? All they would say is... well you knew that when agreed?

Those two examples are covered within the rules of the game, contracts are a different thing (an example is the Bosman ruling allowing out of contract players to move clubs free of charge), and hence why the RFL will not intervene.

Oh yea I agree with that, but that's how I mean Sheffield would just say 'well Barlow knew this' bit like people signing the working time directive in this country... in effect restricts how much you can earn but heh we agreed to it!

Have spent a few days researching this before commenting

Interestingly it makes no odds what is or isn't in the contract because all such loyalty (anti competitor) clauses are illegal anyway under European law. What the extract below says (from a very long article) is that every citizen has the right to work freely and can not be obstructed from doing so. Any contravention of this contravenes the individuals fundamental (human) rights

Another point to consider is that Sheffield effectively broke the agreement by allowing Barlow to play in the 9's. At that point Barlow had played against Sheffield in 2010 and the clause becomes null and void unless there is another written agreement to re-instate it. There is no legal standing in law allowing a contract to be broken by mutual consent and then re-applying it.

Sheffield's claim against Halifax is tenuous at best. Halifax are Barlows new employers but there can be no contract in place between the clubs. The claim seems to centre around influencing Barlow to break his contract. This is virtually impossible to prove. As his employer Halifax have every right to expect him to work and Barlow has every right to work under European law. Sheffield also have to show they took all reasonable steps before commencing litigation (hence the offer to settle) Unfortunately they did not seek legal advice prior to the game or apply to a judge for an injunction to stop Barlow playing. Both Halifax and Barlow will claim that this is because they had no intention of preventing him playing and were only interested in financial reward.

Potentially Sheffield could pursue Barlow for breach of contract, however there is no financial gain to be made from litigation against a part time rugby player. Sheffield also run the risk of a substantial counter claim by Barlow who can claim that the contract (release) agreement he signed contravenes The European Right to Work Act and his fundamental rights as a European citizen. Whilst Sheffield may win a small victory against Barlow financially, Barlow could sue through the European courts for "unlimited" damages.

Seperate to the legalities is the cost. Sheffield United paid out £1.8 Million in legal fees before receiving a settlement from West Ham for the Tevez affair. West Ham spent £1.2 million defending them. Both clubs would go to the wall long before the case got anywhere near a courtroom. Regardless of who won or lost both clubs would be forced to fold as neither could afford the others costs let alone settlement.

Halifax and Barlow probably didn't act in good faith but there is no legal substance for any party involved

[iThe right to work at EU level is guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 15) which stipulates: 1. ‘Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation; and 2. Every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State’.

Article 15(1) applies to ‘everyone’ – employees and self-employed persons – regardless of the nature of their employment relationship. It is a fundamental human right. The formula of ‘the right to engage in work’ appears to be a compromise between a ‘freedom to enter into work’, or a wider ‘right to work’.

As a constitutional right recognised in some Member States, the right to work creates legal obligations on the state to develop an active employment policy, to guarantee the freedom of work and to organise a free functioning labour market. A narrow view of the EU Charter’s ‘right to engage in work’ would limit it to giving access to the labour market. A broader view of the right extends to the political commitment of the state to promote integration in employment and stability at work. For example, it could act as a constitutional anchor for the EU’s commitment to a high level of employment and its employment policy.

Article 15(2) of the EU Charter reflects the freedom of movement established by the EC Treaty. It applies to EU citizens and not only to workers, thus going beyond Article 39 of the EC Treaty. The inclusion of the EU Charter in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe might eventually contribute to challenging the remaining limits to freedom of movement.[/i

Are match fees not simply 'bonuses' no-one stops him earning a wage!

I think the club really needs to push this bitterness home next season. And by doing this i think they should come up with some one off t-shirts to generate a bit of extra income for the club for when we play Sheffield. Something along the lines of "How do you like your grapes Mr Aston? Sour?"