How do you prove they were agreed?

That might be what the club are relying on. Cooke would have been deemed to have agreed his, although unsigned, because he turned up for work, played, and was paid the salary set out. Whether the club can be deemed to have agreed a new deal with McD, even though he had (especially if it involved a pay rise that never happened, for example) is one for m'learned friends.

(Apologies for utilising the word "deemed". I am NOT Stevo)

I was just posting pretty much the same thing!

Verbal agreements are a matter of honour when it comes to substantiating them. Im pretty sure that a couple of solicitors when discussing this agreement in court will have honour at the forefront of their minds.... right?

Maybe a parting gift from Gentle/McRae would be a signed statement stating the player was offered X amount. (Just adding fuel

)

another day, another problem

This is so much funnier when I read it in Brian Griffins voice (if that makes sense?)

If you put all our problems down on paper, this would be right at the bottom.

a problem is a problem

Wouldn't be in my first book that's for sure.

I'm pretty annoyed by this, I liked McDonnell and thought he actually improved our attack greatly. If he had being from Hull he would have got his new deal for sure.

I'm all for the club trying to get local players on board but it seems to be borderline racist now that if you don't know what a pattie is your out the door next. This attitude has already cost us McDonnell and Azza, whose gonna be next.

Is it this that's behind Azza leaving?

Much as I also liked McDonnell, I'm sure that Jamie will be on a much smaller salary and thus we will have more to invest in players we desperately need. I think your racist quote is quite unnecessary as we've brought in the likes of Paea, Sa, Feka which goes very much against what you are saying.

But I heard that Arundel put curry sauce on his fish and that's why we've been playing Hull-born-and-bred Talanoa in the centres.

The current regime have employed Sa, Paleaaesina and I think Talanoa so the evidence doesn't really back up that argument. It seems we don't want to spend big money in areas where we already have good quality and I would think it's Shaul's emergence that changed the club's mind about McDonnell - rightly based upon Shaul's performances this year. Azza I would have liked to see stay for another year however I'll need to see the overall recruitment for next year before making my mind up on that one.

verbally Agreed, nothing signed and not played under the new contract agreement, then he resigns (quits, doesn't get fired)...he hasn't a leg to stand on.

I liked Shannon as well, thought he could've been top player for a long time at fc

I reckon its time to get Jeremy kyle involved to sort this circus out

Talk about overreaction.

It's all about getting value for money, Shaul is younger fitter, cheaper and IMO will be a better player, if not already.

As highlighted Radford has already signed a few overseas players and this will continue, but you get much more value and loyalty from local players, like wigan, Saints and Leeds do and this is the model we are trying to follow.

If there's no ink..it didn't happen.
Either he tries to force Gentle to say there was (in which case why didn't he sign) or he has a recording of a verbal agreement which is unlikely.
One person's word against another means he'll lose

Wasnt he signed up anyway until the end of 2014. Then told he wasnt wanted, Im sure some way or other he will get something. only my opinion like. And assuming he has some evidence of been told he wasnt wanted.

In contract law, a contract may be oral or written. Just needs the usual offer, acceptance, consideration blah blah blah.

On this occasion it's been nothing more than a handshake, so it would be up to the court to decide what the parties have agreed.

It's quite possible for them to rule in SMc's favour, however i'd be surprised given the nature of the business and how professional sport contracts are done usually and the monies potentially involved.

The key difference between This situation and the Paul Cooke situation is that Cooke and Hull had already started acting under the contractual terms.

McDonnall will have been under his original contract upto the end of October.

Verbal agreements are difficult to enforce. Take the example of the NRL player who was left paralysed recently, Alex McKinnon. The NRL were quoted as offering him a job for life. Now I am sure the NRL will not actually want to make McKinnon work in to his 90's., yet in theory by the letter of the quote that's what could happen should McKinnon accept.

A term of phrase can easily be misinterpreted in the eyes of the law.

That's why I said i'd be surprised, for pretty much the reasons you've given. But if us on an internet forum know this, then obviously the people SMc's enlisted to look into it know this and have their reasons for advising him to pursue an action. More to this than meets the eye, and I reckon we'll settle. Which is probably what SMc and his advisers want and will be the reason it's in the papers.

in employment law job for life would mean until std retirement age, whatever that happens to be for each given country.
As it is It's a gobe statement made by another gobe organisation just to make them out to be the good guys in all of this. it is their lack of ensuring that officials stop players before this type of event happens or at the very least harsh punishments on/off field so that it makes players think what they are doing, heat of combat or not.
There are rules of engagement in war, rugby players should be no different. The NRL (& RFL to a lesser extent in other areas) are nothing short of being culpable for injuries like this, the way it lets the tip tackle/tackle between the legs go on game after game without a word being said. The result is a player lucky just to be paralysed.

But they do have an ethical du.........Sorry, silly me.