Re: Justin Carney : Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:35 pm  

Biff Tannen wrote:

Salford is the obvious get out here if he is to stay in SL (should Cas get rid of course)

Assuming Salford are in SL next Season!!!

Re: Justin Carney : Thu Aug 27, 2015 2:56 pm  

number 6 wrote:

like the terry/bridge incident, bridge left. the club will see which player is more important to them once the sympathy has subsided and keep that player i reckon, carney is too valuble a player for cas to lose

sounds harsh on the innocent victim but cas wont want any other sl club having carney

Bridge had left the club and was playing for Man City when the story broke so it didn't leave Chelsea with an awkward decision.

Bridge however ruled himself out of selection for England whilst Terry was still playing for the national side, which again saved management and coaches from making the tough decision.

Like one of the other posters said, you have to consider the rest of the dressing room. Those in the squad who are closest to Massey will be pretty pee'd off if their close mate is sent packing because of what Carney did. It would probably tear the dressing room apart keeping Carney there. He needs to be sold/released whatever.

Re: Justin Carney : Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:40 pm  

OzWelsh wrote:

The fact is we are animals, we are a part of the animal kingdom.

How did that line work out for you? Mine wasn't buying it at all.

Re: Justin Carney : Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:53 pm  

John Gilbert Reds wrote:

If Salford and Cas were to do any swap deal, I imagine it would include BJB rather than Chase or Theo (who could well be a free agent by the end of September).

As a Cas fan, Carney for:

BJB - I'd be distraught unless it involved a large fee and/or another player.

Chase - Quality wise, absolutely - best player I've seen in a Cas shirt, but any questions over impact on dressing room then definitely not (we've been overachieving on the back of spirit and work ethic and nothing, including the brilliance of Carney or Chase should jeopardise that).

Fages - definitely. I'm not personally his greatest admirer but would be an ideal replacement for Finn and I feel he'd work well with Gale.

Re: Justin Carney : Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:14 pm  

Is she tidy??

Re: Justin Carney : Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:19 pm  

jools wrote:

Swap for fages?

There seems to be a big misunderstanding by some people of the Fages situation. He has resigned from Salford and is therefore no longer their employee - he is not theirs to swap! If a club wants to sign Fages they can do so without having to have any discussions with Salford.

Re: Justin Carney : Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:29 pm  

nottinghamtiger wrote: There seems to be a big misunderstanding by some people of the Fages situation. He has resigned from Salford and is therefore no longer their employee - he is not theirs to swap! If a club wants to sign Fages they can do so without having to have any discussions with Salford. You were totally incorrect about visas and the Chase signing. Fages resigned last month and is contracted to Salford until November 2016. If discussions with Salford were not required I would have thought he would have signed elsewhere by now. Press Story

nottinghamtiger wrote: There seems to be a big misunderstanding by some people of the Fages situation. He has resigned from Salford and is therefore no longer their employee - he is not theirs to swap! If a club wants to sign Fages they can do so without having to have any discussions with Salford. You were totally incorrect about visas and the Chase signing. Fages resigned last month and is contracted to Salford until November 2016. If discussions with Salford were not required I would have thought he would have signed elsewhere by now. Press Story

Re: Justin Carney : Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:04 pm  

Angelic Cynic wrote: You were totally incorrect about visas and the Chase signing. Fages resigned last month and is contracted to Salford until November 2016. If discussions with Salford were not required I would have thought he would have signed elsewhere by now. Press Story Not totally incorrect, if you care to read the thread(s) back. I said, and stand by the fact, that there was a strong possibility of Chase not obtaining a Visa with the regulations in place at the time. However, I always said that these things were unpredictable and as it turned out he was given the Visa. Things like this are usually on the human decision of a government official, and there are contradictory decisions all the time as it's a decision often made by balancing different factors. However, I do know contracts if employment. A resignation ends a contract of employment, so it's impossible for Fages to resign and be contracted until 2016. Technically, any contract has to have a reasonable legal resignation period in which an employee can give notice to end the contract of employment. You simply cannot force an employee to remain with an organisation for an unreasonable length of time. For example, those with permanent contracts cannot be forced to work for their employer until retirement. Unless a set period is specified in a contract, notice period is usually 6 months (although statutory notice is much shorter). In Fages' case, it seems he has resigned on the grounds of constructive unfair dismissal, in that he is claiming the club breach his contract first and this allowed him to resign without notice. The thing with this is that an employee is entitled to resign on the grounds of constructive unfair dismissal and it is then down to the employer to take legal action if they think this is unjust and the employee has resigned without just cause. As a general rule, employees (particularly former employees) have the legal advantage over employers in most cases! The employer can only claim any actual financial loss, and it would be very difficult to prove that losing Fages as an employee has directly cost them financially. Even if they did do this, the cost of taking such action is likely to be far higher than any costs recovered. The action can also only be taken against the former employee and not any future employer of that person, so Salford could not legally take any action against any club who sign Fages. I imagine the reason he hasn't signed elsewhere yet is that most clubs won't want to pay him during the off-season for the benefit of a small number of games in 2015.

Angelic Cynic wrote: You were totally incorrect about visas and the Chase signing. Fages resigned last month and is contracted to Salford until November 2016. If discussions with Salford were not required I would have thought he would have signed elsewhere by now. Press Story Not totally incorrect, if you care to read the thread(s) back. I said, and stand by the fact, that there was a strong possibility of Chase not obtaining a Visa with the regulations in place at the time. However, I always said that these things were unpredictable and as it turned out he was given the Visa. Things like this are usually on the human decision of a government official, and there are contradictory decisions all the time as it's a decision often made by balancing different factors. However, I do know contracts if employment. A resignation ends a contract of employment, so it's impossible for Fages to resign and be contracted until 2016. Technically, any contract has to have a reasonable legal resignation period in which an employee can give notice to end the contract of employment. You simply cannot force an employee to remain with an organisation for an unreasonable length of time. For example, those with permanent contracts cannot be forced to work for their employer until retirement. Unless a set period is specified in a contract, notice period is usually 6 months (although statutory notice is much shorter). In Fages' case, it seems he has resigned on the grounds of constructive unfair dismissal, in that he is claiming the club breach his contract first and this allowed him to resign without notice. The thing with this is that an employee is entitled to resign on the grounds of constructive unfair dismissal and it is then down to the employer to take legal action if they think this is unjust and the employee has resigned without just cause. As a general rule, employees (particularly former employees) have the legal advantage over employers in most cases! The employer can only claim any actual financial loss, and it would be very difficult to prove that losing Fages as an employee has directly cost them financially. Even if they did do this, the cost of taking such action is likely to be far higher than any costs recovered. The action can also only be taken against the former employee and not any future employer of that person, so Salford could not legally take any action against any club who sign Fages. I imagine the reason he hasn't signed elsewhere yet is that most clubs won't want to pay him during the off-season for the benefit of a small number of games in 2015.

Re: Justin Carney : Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:59 pm  

Apparently some are saying the baby that Mrs Massey has had is Carney's.When the midwife tackled it (the birth) the baby got up and started fighting

Re: Justin Carney : Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:05 pm  

nottinghamtiger wrote:

However, I do know contracts if employment. A resignation ends a contract of employment, so it's impossible for Fages to resign and be contracted until 2016. Technically, any contract has to have a reasonable legal resignation period in which an employee can give notice to end the contract of employment. You simply cannot force an employee to remain with an organisation for an unreasonable length of time. For example, those with permanent contracts cannot be forced to work for their employer until retirement. Unless a set period is specified in a contract, notice period is usually 6 months (although statutory notice is much shorter).

Are you Iestyn Harris' agent?

With pro players theres not just the matter of their employment contract but also their player registration. The RFL will have to have a tribunal to determine the dispute on that and until then Farges can't join another club.

On your line of logic surely no sports team would ever need to pay a transfer fee.