Just been told that Jack Viney starred for SA kicking 3 goals and in hand beat Vic Metro by 19 points.

SA wins by 19 p over Vic c in great game Ben Kennedy SA great with 5 g ; Viney also good,3 g ; Daniher 5 g for Vics Metro.Daniher is a 197 tall ,son of Anthony who played with the Swans & Essendon. I think he therefore is the brother of Darcy, current Essendon player.

Edited July 4, 201015 yr by jayceebee31

Just been told that Jack Viney starred for SA kicking 3 goals and in hand beat Vic Metro by 19 points.

SA wins by 19 p over Vic c in great game Ben Kennedy SA great with 5 g ; Viney also good,3 g ; Daniher 5 g for Vics Metro.Daniher is a 197 tall ,son of Anthony who played with the Swans & Essendon. I think he therefore is the brother of Darcy, current Essendon player.

Would just like to hear that Jack has committed to playing with the Dees.

Would just like to hear that Jack has committed to playing with the Dees.

Agree totally- Shifter Sheehan just stated on TAC at 1pm today that he will be a star and will feature him next week. He beat Vic Country coached by Gary Lyon yesterday..

Edited July 4, 201015 yr by jayceebee31

he beat them did he.. on his own.. must be good.

Would just like to hear that Jack has committed to playing with the Dees.

If he has indicated to MFC that he would come to Melbourne then he is bound by contract law to do so.

If he has indicated to MFC that he would come to Melbourne then he is bound by contract law to do so.

Maybe, maybe not, buts I don't think thats how to build a winning culture.

I think wanting to play for a club might be an important ingredient.

If he has indicated to MFC that he would come to Melbourne then he is bound by contract law to do so.

Verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they're not written on.

Verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they're not written on.

Contract is a contract which may be enforced by law. If he verbally agrees to play for MFC he can be made to honour that contract. its as simple as that.

Contract is a contract which may be enforced by law. If he verbally agrees to play for MFC he can be made to honour that contract. its as simple as that.

Prove it.

Prove it.

Don't need to prove it- it is a FACT.

That sounds like a plan: let's get a kid that has told us in good faith the he will be happy playing for us and threaten him with legal action if he backs out or has second thoughts. That should get him bleeding red and blue.

Don't need to prove it- it is a FACT.

*sigh*

How do you prove that a verbal contract was made?

Guys....get a life and stop bickering

From my understanding, Todd is representing Jack's negotiations. I can confirm that Connelly has had formal discussions with Todd about Jacks services via the father son rule. As for an agreement? I do not think anything has been reached at this point- that said, I am pretty sure Todd would like him at Melbourne and Jack would be leaning towards the comfort of playing for a well rebuilt team by the time his number is called.

Edited July 4, 201015 yr by Wrathchild

From my understanding, Todd is representing Jack's negotiations. I can confirm that Connelly has had formal discussions with Todd about Jacks services via the father son rule. As for an agreement? I do not think anything has been reached at this point- that said, I am pretty sure Todd would like him at Melbourne and Jack would be leaning towards the comfort of playing for a well rebuilt team by the time his number is called.

I concur

If he has indicated to MFC that he would come to Melbourne then he is bound by contract law to do so.

Garbage.

Contract is a contract which may be enforced by law. If he verbally agrees to play for MFC he can be made to honour that contract. its as simple as that.

Are you a bush lawyer?

How have they got a contract between the parties based on discussions? What has been agreed? How do you prove the terms are contractual?

Don't need to prove it- it is a FACT.

No its not a fact. But I am glad you're convinced.

let's get a kid that has told us in good faith the he will be happy playing for us and threaten him with legal action if he backs out or has second thoughts. That should get him bleeding red and blue.

Its prove positive for some.

From my understanding, Todd is representing Jack's negotiations. I can confirm that Connelly has had formal discussions with Todd about Jacks services via the father son rule. As for an agreement? I do not think anything has been reached at this point- that said, I am pretty sure Todd would like him at Melbourne and Jack would be leaning towards the comfort of playing for a well rebuilt team by the time his number is called.

Gotta a source for your understanding?

Jack is 16yo and its logical and reasonable that his father Tood represent him.

No Agreement has been reached from discussions so far.

While the poster is pretty sure he does not actually know what Todd's and Jack;s intentions are.

Nothing startling or unusual with Wchilds summary and there is no contract yet....

I concur

So much for the FACT.

Picture from the weekends game.

I am pretty sure Jack is the one for SA on the left...

I seem to remember Cuddles saying at some point that the club is well aware of young Jack, his ability and his progress and that they ( the club ) would be keeping a close eye on him especially given our father/son trump card. But there was nothing more concrete that a noted interest in an exciting prospect. I would expect when a more appropriate juncture is reached that suitable lobbying and efforts wil be had to secure his services.

edit

my bad..was Predergast...but sure Cuddles said similar ..lol

those predisposed..

drool !!

source:

Viney cathes Demons eye

Edited July 5, 201015 yr by belzebub59

Garbage.

Are you a bush lawyer?

How have they got a contract between the parties based on discussions? What has been agreed? How do you prove the terms are contractual?

No its not a fact. But I am glad you're convinced.

Its prove positive for some.

Gotta a source for your understanding?

Jack is 16yo and its logical and reasonable that his father Tood represent him.

No Agreement has been reached from discussions so far.

While the poster is pretty sure he does not actually know what Todd's and Jack;s intentions are.

Nothing startling or unusual with Wchilds summary and there is no contract yet....

So much for the FACT.

This contrasts with a contract which is implied by actions of the parties. An implied contract can be either implied in fact or implied in law. A contract which is implied in fact is one in which the circumstances imply that parties have reached an agreement even though they have not done so expressly. For example, by going to a doctor for a physical, a patient agrees that he will pay a fair price for the service. If he refuses to pay after being examined, he has breached a contract implied in fact.

This is a definition above Rhino-and don't tell me that witnesses would not be involved.And how do you know that no contract is in place. Tod Viney met with the club after the match last week and so did Jack.

Don't need to prove it- it is a FACT.

Prove it as prove that he verbally agreed. It's like telling someone that you won't sue them if you're injured. Worth less than nothing.

It's 100% true that a verbal agreement constitutes a legally binding contract between the two parties.

Having said that, I don't think there is much point discussing it at the moment, given that all signs point to Jack happily agreeing to join the MFC in the future.

It's 100% true that a verbal agreement constitutes a legally binding contract between the two parties.

Having said that, I don't think there is much point discussing it at the moment, given that all signs point to Jack happily agreeing to join the MFC in the future.

The rules of the AFL draft vitiate (look it up) any other contract, whether verbal or otherwise. If JV does not want to join the MFC, he either is available to GC or GWS, or takes his luck in the National Draft. Simple as that.

This contrasts with a contract which is implied by actions of the parties. An implied contract can be either implied in fact or implied in law. A contract which is implied in fact is one in which the circumstances imply that parties have reached an agreement even though they have not done so expressly. For example, by going to a doctor for a physical, a patient agrees that he will pay a fair price for the service. If he refuses to pay after being examined, he has breached a contract implied in fact.

This is a definition above Rhino-and don't tell me that witnesses would not be involved.And how do you know that no contract is in place. Tod Viney met with the club after the match last week and so did Jack.

I am well aware of what a contract is and what it isn't. The FACT is neither you nor any other poster knows the current disposition of the discussions between the Club and the Vineys. He may well (and I hope) come to MFC but I dont start spouting speculation as FACTS.

How do you know that a contract is in place? Todd and Jack met with the Club last week. Great. What was agreed at the meeting? You dont know. It may have been a discussion without any contractual intentions at this point. And your example of the doctor is a poor one. When you go to a doctor you go for services rendered and from the terms listed in the waiting room.

Alternatively how did Jack V go in his check up? Did you he get a presciption for his ailment? B)

The rules of the AFL draft vitiate (look it up) any other contract, whether verbal or otherwise. If JV does not want to join the MFC, he either is available to GC or GWS, or takes his luck in the National Draft. Simple as that.

vitiate?? uh oh - To impair or invalidate in part or in full; make void or voidable. So is that any other contract other than a written one? Seems logical if they are talking about transparency. JV options look clear depending on what year he nominates for the draft

No consideration on either side.

No contract.

Either way, biggest non-issue ever.

Yep, the thread has been hijacked by biggest non-issue in football.