Discussion:
A cancer removed from Aus cricket
(too old to reply)
Dechucka
2013-07-16 20:40:02 UTC
Good riddance Mickey Arthur, you are now going on like a prat
eusebius
2013-07-17 09:08:42 UTC
Post by Dechucka
Good riddance Mickey Arthur, you are now going on like a prat
A malignant old mole perhaps?
eusebius
2013-07-17 09:09:19 UTC
Post by eusebius
Post by Dechucka
Good riddance Mickey Arthur, you are now going on like a prat
A malignant old mole perhaps?
But don't forget, his legal team may be the ones responsible for the leaks. Apparently they have form on this. But the timing is exquisite.
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-07-17 11:07:17 UTC
I wouldn't call them leaks, really. They appear to be in documents lodged with the court...available to anyone for a processing fee.
eusebius
2013-07-17 14:19:39 UTC
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
I wouldn't call them leaks, really. They appear to be in documents lodged with the court...available to anyone for a processing fee.
They seem to have been given wide publicity- I'm not rushing to conclusions, except to say I have no respect for Arthur whatsoever. Ditto Clarke (as a human being, that is, as a player I respect his batting record)
Mike Holmans
2013-07-17 14:43:22 UTC
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:19:39 -0700 (PDT), eusebius
Post by eusebius
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
I wouldn't call them leaks, really. They appear to be in documents lodged with the court...available to anyone for a processing fee.
They seem to have been given wide publicity- I'm not rushing to conclusions, except to say I have no respect for Arthur whatsoever. Ditto Clarke (as a human being, that is, as a player I respect his batting record)
You can't expect to sack a high-profile coach with no notice and not
get some blowback. Claims for unfair dismissal usually have to be
lodged within some specified time after the sacking. Arthur's lawyers
are bound to file the most extreme claim they think they can get away
with (or they wouldn't be doing their job), and it is a matter of
court procedure that the details of a claim are accessible to anyone
(on payment of the requisite administrative fees - which are of course
wildly inflated, but that's another story altogether).

It's a pretty good statement of claim, as far as I can see. It's
wide-ranging and mentions lots of high-profile people and lots of
sensitive issues. CA now have to weigh up whether they want several
days of court proceedings involving Arthur's counsel interrogating
Clarke, Watson, Sutherland, Howard, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all being
reported gleefully by the assembled media or whether they would prefer
to reach an "amicable" settlement.

Looks to me as though Arthur's lawyers are doing a damn good job. And
that that's all that you can reasonably conclude.

Cheers,

Mike
--
eusebius
2013-07-17 16:55:45 UTC
Post by Mike Holmans
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:19:39 -0700 (PDT), eusebius
Post by eusebius
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
I wouldn't call them leaks, really. They appear to be in documents lodged with the court...available to anyone for a processing fee.
They seem to have been given wide publicity- I'm not rushing to conclusions, except to say I have no respect for Arthur whatsoever. Ditto Clarke (as a human being, that is, as a player I respect his batting record)
You can't expect to sack a high-profile coach with no notice and not
get some blowback. Claims for unfair dismissal usually have to be
lodged within some specified time after the sacking. Arthur's lawyers
are bound to file the most extreme claim they think they can get away
with (or they wouldn't be doing their job), and it is a matter of
court procedure that the details of a claim are accessible to anyone
(on payment of the requisite administrative fees - which are of course
wildly inflated, but that's another story altogether).
Yes, I have no disagreement with any of this. However, the legal team involved have a history of creating maximum publicity for their clients by using the most salacious parts of claims (possibly using fictitious statements as part of this). Also, they tend to sue for quite outrageous sums (not sure how much Arthur's salary was, but I bet that $4M is a lot more than it). The Ashby/Slipper case is a recent case in point. Apparently the legal firm is the same. If you google this, you will see they have form.
Post by Mike Holmans
It's a pretty good statement of claim, as far as I can see. It's
wide-ranging and mentions lots of high-profile people and lots of
sensitive issues. CA now have to weigh up whether they want several
days of court proceedings involving Arthur's counsel interrogating
Clarke, Watson, Sutherland, Howard, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all being
reported gleefully by the assembled media or whether they would prefer
to reach an "amicable" settlement.
Looks to me as though Arthur's lawyers are doing a damn good job. And
that that's all that you can reasonably conclude.
Cheers,
Mike
They are thorough (and probably thorough bastards as well). As for their ethics, well as I said they have proven to be borderline in the past. But they may be doing a damn fine job for him. But publicity of this kind could only be of value if it spooks CA and they pay out. Australian judges tend to be quite snooty towards US style 'trial be media'.
jzfredricks
2013-07-17 18:29:16 UTC
Post by eusebius
Yes, I have no disagreement with any of this. However, the legal team involved have a history of creating maximum publicity for their clients by using the most salacious parts of claims (possibly using fictitious statements as part of this). Also, they tend to sue for quite outrageous sums (not sure how much Arthur's salary was, but I bet that $4M is a lot more than it). The Ashby/Slipper case is a recent case in point. Apparently the legal firm is the same. If you google this, you will see they have form.
Oh goodness, he's using THEM? What an asshole. They should be dis-barred (or whatever the Aus term is). That, or boiled alive, which ever is easier to arrange.
eusebius
2013-07-18 02:48:45 UTC
Post by jzfredricks
Post by eusebius
Yes, I have no disagreement with any of this. However, the legal team involved have a history of creating maximum publicity for their clients by using the most salacious parts of claims (possibly using fictitious statements as part of this). Also, they tend to sue for quite outrageous sums (not sure how much Arthur's salary was, but I bet that $4M is a lot more than it). The Ashby/Slipper case is a recent case in point. Apparently the legal firm is the same. If you google this, you will see they have form.
Oh goodness, he's using THEM? What an asshole. They should be dis-barred (or whatever the Aus term is). That, or boiled alive, which ever is easier to arrange.
Well, the Rares judgement was pretty damning, but nobody seems to have been punished in any substantive kind of way. Despite the internet activism (and Margo Kingston).
Bob Dubery
2013-07-17 20:36:53 UTC
Post by eusebius
Yes, I have no disagreement with any of this. However, the legal team involved have a history of creating maximum publicity for their clients by using the most salacious parts of claims (possibly using fictitious statements as part of this). Also, they tend to sue for quite outrageous sums (not sure how much Arthur's salary was, but I bet that $4M is a lot more than it).
You sue for an inflated amount. If the court awards the actual amount then whoopee and everybody gets a bonus (and Arthur covers his costs). If the court awards you a percentage of your claim then you're still doing OK.

Ethics is an interesting matter, and depends on perspective. If these guys were representing me then, as Mike has said, I'd consider that they were fulfilling their duty to me 100% and doing the job with great diligence.
eusebius
2013-07-18 02:57:28 UTC
Post by Bob Dubery
You sue for an inflated amount. If the court awards the actual amount then whoopee and everybody gets a bonus (and Arthur covers his costs). If the court awards you a percentage of your claim then you're still doing OK.
This is what is often planned, yes. But this isn't America. These are called 'ambit' claims here, with the full understanding that the amount sought is really just fantasy. It insults the intelligence of all involved.
Post by Bob Dubery
Ethics is an interesting matter, and depends on perspective. If these guys were representing me then, as Mike has said, I'd consider that they were fulfilling their duty to me 100% and doing the job with great diligence.
Not with the leaks. These will never help the legal case IMO. This was part of what Rares was talking about as to Harmer's abuse of process. I guess the strategy is to humiliate CA into coughing up, and quickly.
Bob Dubery
2013-07-18 06:44:14 UTC
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
You sue for an inflated amount. If the court awards the actual amount then whoopee and everybody gets a bonus (and Arthur covers his costs). If the court awards you a percentage of your claim then you're still doing OK.
This is what is often planned, yes. But this isn't America.
Can't have that, can we?
Post by eusebius
These are called 'ambit' claims here, with the full understanding that the amount sought is really just fantasy. It insults the intelligence of all involved.
Well you might feel insulted. That's not the same thing. Presumably the lawyers involved have reasons other than pissing off RASF1 for citing these amounts.
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Ethics is an interesting matter, and depends on perspective. If these guys were representing me then, as Mike has said, I'd consider that they were fulfilling their duty to me 100% and doing the job with great diligence.
Not with the leaks. These will never help the legal case IMO. This was part of what Rares was talking about as to Harmer's abuse of process. I guess the strategy is to humiliate CA into coughing up, and quickly.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, there's a presumption that it has to be somebody on Arthur's side who was responsible for the leaks. It ain't necessarily so. All we know is there's a leak. Until somebody puts there hand up and says "it was me" we won't know who leaked them.
eusebius
2013-07-18 21:33:46 UTC
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
These are called 'ambit' claims here, with the full understanding that the amount sought is really just fantasy. It insults the intelligence of all involved.
Well you might feel insulted. That's not the same thing. Presumably the lawyers involved have reasons other than pissing off RASF1 for citing these amounts.
You partly identified the motivation earlier. They aren't seeking the full amount necessarily, but somewhere between 0 and 4 million. It isn't as obviously egregious a claim as in the Kristy Fraser-Kirk matter, but you will find in the course of time a payout of considerably less than what has been suggested.

Now please argue with me on some blindingly obvious and straightforward thing I've said.
Bob Dubery
2013-07-19 06:11:56 UTC
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
These are called 'ambit' claims here, with the full understanding that the amount sought is really just fantasy. It insults the intelligence of all involved.
Well you might feel insulted. That's not the same thing. Presumably the lawyers involved have reasons other than pissing off RASF1 for citing these amounts.
You partly identified the motivation earlier. They aren't seeking the full amount necessarily, but somewhere between 0 and 4 million. It isn't as obviously egregious a claim as in the Kristy Fraser-Kirk matter, but you will find in the course of time a payout of considerably less than what has been suggested.
Now please argue with me on some blindingly obvious and straightforward thing I've said.
What I'm really taking up cudgels against here is the ridiculous moral posturing. Your poor hurt feelings.

Everything is insulting to the intelligence. It's martyrdom. The claim is rediculous. Blah de blah.

It's none of that. Arthur had a contract that would have naturally terminated sometime in March 2015. He gets the heave-ho mid 2013, with Sutherland admitting that Arthur was made scapegoat to some degree. Now he's suing for compensation. Who'd have thought? Did anybody really think he would shake hands, thank CA for the good times and ride off into the sunset? OF COURSE he was going to expect to be paid out for the full term of his contract or take legal action if he wasn't.

And OF COURSE the papers he filed were going to go into lots of detail. Otherwise he gets to court and things aren't going too well and he wants to introduce, say, the matter of the relationship between Clarke and Watson and CA's lawyers will throw their hands up in protest and ask the judge why, since he is the prosecuting party, he didn't state this in his original deposition.
eusebius
2013-07-21 13:55:58 UTC
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
These are called 'ambit' claims here, with the full understanding that the amount sought is really just fantasy. It insults the intelligence of all involved.
Well you might feel insulted. That's not the same thing. Presumably the lawyers involved have reasons other than pissing off RASF1 for citing these amounts.
You partly identified the motivation earlier. They aren't seeking the full amount necessarily, but somewhere between 0 and 4 million. It isn't as obviously egregious a claim as in the Kristy Fraser-Kirk matter, but you will find in the course of time a payout of considerably less than what has been suggested.
Now please argue with me on some blindingly obvious and straightforward thing I've said.
What I'm really taking up cudgels against here is the ridiculous moral posturing. Your poor hurt feelings.
Everything is insulting to the intelligence. It's martyrdom. The claim is rediculous. Blah de blah.
That's really just your inference. I've admitted that he has somewhat of a case. I don't like this sort of legal practise (as well as not being a fan of Arthur, admittedly). There is little moral posturing in what I believe about this matter, IMO. Merely he is significantly overreaching, and no doubt being in cahoots (or possibly being used) by a clever and unscrupulous bunch of lawyers. But Arthur never seems responsible for anything, really.
Post by Bob Dubery
It's none of that. Arthur had a contract that would have naturally terminated sometime in March 2015. He gets the heave-ho mid 2013, with Sutherland admitting that Arthur was made scapegoat to some degree. Now he's suing for compensation. Who'd have thought? Did anybody really think he would shake hands, thank CA for the good times and ride off into the sunset? OF COURSE he was going to expect to be paid out for the full term of his contract or take legal action if he wasn't.
Please show where I've quibbled with any of this.
Post by Bob Dubery
And OF COURSE the papers he filed were going to go into lots of detail. Otherwise he gets to court and things aren't going too well and he wants to introduce, say, the matter of the relationship between Clarke and Watson and CA's lawyers will throw their hands up in protest and ask the judge why, since he is the prosecuting party, he didn't state this in his original deposition.
It seems convenient. Also unnecessary (they probably won't wash either, how team disharmony can be a defense seems laughable, since he is responsible for team discipline. And the leaks are exquisitely timed in order to make an Ashes series even more of a trainwreck than it needs to be). How any of this proves 'racial discrimination' is moot. Frankly Arthur is a bit of a crybaby, promoted above his level of incompetence. No doubt he'll get a reasonable figure, but I hope not an exorbitant one.

Also, I would be very interested to know who leaked specifically, but I guess that is too much to ask.
Bob Dubery
2013-07-22 10:07:52 UTC
On Sunday, 21 July 2013 15:55:58 UTC+2, eusebius wrote:
<snip>
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
What I'm really taking up cudgels against here is the ridiculous moral posturing. Your poor hurt feelings.
Everything is insulting to the intelligence. It's martyrdom. The claim is rediculous. Blah de blah.
That's really just your inference.
No. It's all stuff you've said.
Post by eusebius
I've admitted that he has somewhat of a case. I don't like this sort of legal practise (as well as not being a fan of Arthur, admittedly). There is little moral posturing in what I believe about this matter, IMO.
Well if we accept that I inferred it and you never said it.
Post by eusebius
Merely he is significantly overreaching, and no doubt being in cahoots (or possibly being used) by a clever and unscrupulous bunch of lawyers. But Arthur never seems responsible for anything, really.
Post by Bob Dubery
It's none of that. Arthur had a contract that would have naturally terminated sometime in March 2015. He gets the heave-ho mid 2013, with Sutherland admitting that Arthur was made scapegoat to some degree. Now he's suing for compensation. Who'd have thought? Did anybody really think he would shake hands, thank CA for the good times and ride off into the sunset? OF COURSE he was going to expect to be paid out for the full term of his contract or take legal action if he wasn't.
Please show where I've quibbled with any of this.
Did I say you had? Well, you seem to have difficult remembering what you've posted, so the confusion is perhaps to be expected.

That you didn't quibble with it doesn't mean that you posted it or accept it.
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
And OF COURSE the papers he filed were going to go into lots of detail. Otherwise he gets to court and things aren't going too well and he wants to introduce, say, the matter of the relationship between Clarke and Watson and CA's lawyers will throw their hands up in protest and ask the judge why, since he is the prosecuting party, he didn't state this in his original deposition.
It seems convenient. Also unnecessary
I'm saying it's prudent because he might not be able to introduce it at a later stage. Rather like being mirandised, in which process you are told that introducing something later that you could have but did not declare earlier on will not be well received.
Post by eusebius
(they probably won't wash either, how team disharmony can be a defense seems laughable,
Is it an entire defence? Or is it just part of building up a complete picture of the conditions under which he was trying to coach a team?
Post by eusebius
since he is responsible for team discipline. And the leaks are exquisitely timed in order to make an Ashes series even more of a trainwreck than it needs to be). How any of this proves 'racial discrimination' is moot. Frankly Arthur is a bit of a crybaby, promoted above his level of incompetence. No doubt he'll get a reasonable figure, but I hope not an exorbitant one.
Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but understand that's all it is: Your opinion.

Hold on... but it's NOT just opinion is it? It's either misrepresentation or a flaw of reasoning. YOU are saying that disharmony and the discipline issue is being used to justify the accusation of racial discrimination. Has Arthur or his legal team said that?
Post by eusebius
Also, I would be very interested to know who leaked specifically, but I guess that is too much to ask.
eusebius
2013-07-23 04:13:13 UTC
Post by Bob Dubery
<snip>
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
What I'm really taking up cudgels against here is the ridiculous moral posturing. Your poor hurt feelings.
Everything is insulting to the intelligence. It's martyrdom. The claim is rediculous. Blah de blah.
That's really just your inference.
More specifically, the idea that I'm asserting that the claim is 'rediculous' (sic) is your inference. And that there is moral posturing involved. That 'everything' is this. Even if you use words and expressions I have, you cannot claim that I am stating that *everything* can be described that way. A semantic point, but an important one. Although I have used emotive terms, your pigeonholing my argument in terms of such is also emotive and somewhat misleading.
Post by Bob Dubery
No. It's all stuff you've said.
Post by eusebius
I've admitted that he has somewhat of a case. I don't like this sort of legal practise (as well as not being a fan of Arthur, admittedly). There is little moral posturing in what I believe about this matter, IMO.
Well if we accept that I inferred it and you never said it.
I took your statement to mean I was morally posturing. If I said that he was morally posturing, then it was legitimate for you to quote this, even if selective quoting is not really of much ultimate benefit.
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
Merely he is significantly overreaching, and no doubt being in cahoots (or possibly being used) by a clever and unscrupulous bunch of lawyers. But Arthur never seems responsible for anything, really.
Post by Bob Dubery
It's none of that. Arthur had a contract that would have naturally terminated sometime in March 2015. He gets the heave-ho mid 2013, with Sutherland admitting that Arthur was made scapegoat to some degree. Now he's suing for compensation. Who'd have thought? Did anybody really think he would shake hands, thank CA for the good times and ride off into the sunset? OF COURSE he was going to expect to be paid out for the full term of his contract or take legal action if he wasn't.
Please show where I've quibbled with any of this.
Did I say you had? Well, you seem to have difficult remembering what you've posted, so the confusion is perhaps to be expected.
But you continually mention that he had a right to make a claim, as if anyone has disagreed. So you didn't state that I had quibbled, but you strongly imply by your repetitious defence of that point that I was. I am not.
Post by Bob Dubery
That you didn't quibble with it doesn't mean that you posted it or accept it.
Why infer it? If it is unstated, and not implied, mentioning such things only further muddies the waters.
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
And OF COURSE the papers he filed were going to go into lots of detail. Otherwise he gets to court and things aren't going too well and he wants to introduce, say, the matter of the relationship between Clarke and Watson and CA's lawyers will throw their hands up in protest and ask the judge why, since he is the prosecuting party, he didn't state this in his original deposition.
It seems convenient. Also unnecessary
I'm saying it's prudent because he might not be able to introduce it at a later stage. Rather like being mirandised, in which process you are told that introducing something later that you could have but did not declare earlier on will not be well received.
Fair enough- but then as you point out, this was certainly leaked to the press, a rather nasty tactic. I hope that the source of the leaks can be fingered forensically.
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
(they probably won't wash either, how team disharmony can be a defense seems laughable,
Is it an entire defence? Or is it just part of building up a complete picture of the conditions under which he was trying to coach a team?
Post by eusebius
since he is responsible for team discipline. And the leaks are exquisitely timed in order to make an Ashes series even more of a trainwreck than it needs to be). How any of this proves 'racial discrimination' is moot. Frankly Arthur is a bit of a crybaby, promoted above his level of incompetence. No doubt he'll get a reasonable figure, but I hope not an exorbitant one.
Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but understand that's all it is: Your opinion.
Hold on... but it's NOT just opinion is it? It's either misrepresentation or a flaw of reasoning. YOU are saying that disharmony and the discipline issue is being used to justify the accusation of racial discrimination. Has Arthur or his legal team said that?
I guess we are all thrashing around in the dark at least to some degree, so having aired an opinion (mine no doubt coloured by a developed antipathy to Arthur) we can let the courts deliberate as they are statutorily entitled and equipped to do.

But here you misunderstand my point. Indirectly, yes. Not in a purely linear, causal way. Obviously the team disharmony is being used as a figleaf to justify poor performance (there cannot be any other reason for them to be mentioned, and purely coincidentally, the stuff about 'racism' was leaked along with the other stuff about team disharmony). Obviously these excuses have been juxtaposed in order to obviate responsibility where it counts, success.
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
Also, I would be very interested to know who leaked specifically, but I guess that is too much to ask.
Bob Dubery
2013-07-23 05:55:28 UTC
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
<snip>
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
What I'm really taking up cudgels against here is the ridiculous moral posturing. Your poor hurt feelings.
Everything is insulting to the intelligence. It's martyrdom. The claim is rediculous. Blah de blah.
That's really just your inference.
More specifically, the idea that I'm asserting that the claim is 'rediculous' (sic) is your inference. And that there is moral posturing involved. That 'everything' is this. Even if you use words and expressions I have, you cannot claim that I am stating that *everything* can be described that way. A semantic point, but an important one. Although I have used emotive terms, your pigeonholing my argument in terms of such is also emotive and somewhat misleading.
Bollocks it is. You've chosen to take that line of attack, you've repeatedly played the moral card and dealt in the subjective, taking pot shots, which you can't substantiate, at Arthur as you go. So if you want to play it that way then don't complain when somebody points out that you're playing it that way. It's not misleading to do that. It would be misleading to say that you've taken any other approach.
eusebius
2013-07-23 12:20:53 UTC
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
<snip>
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
What I'm really taking up cudgels against here is the ridiculous moral posturing. Your poor hurt feelings.
Everything is insulting to the intelligence. It's martyrdom. The claim is rediculous. Blah de blah.
That's really just your inference.
More specifically, the idea that I'm asserting that the claim is 'rediculous' (sic) is your inference. And that there is moral posturing involved. That 'everything' is this. Even if you use words and expressions I have, you cannot claim that I am stating that *everything* can be described that way. A semantic point, but an important one. Although I have used emotive terms, your pigeonholing my argument in terms of such is also emotive and somewhat misleading.
Bollocks it is. You've chosen to take that line of attack, you've repeatedly played the moral card and dealt in the subjective, taking pot shots, which you can't substantiate, at Arthur as you go. So if you want to play it that way then don't complain when somebody points out that you're playing it that way. It's not misleading to do that. It would be misleading to say that you've taken any other approach.
Again that's just an inference from an obsessive, constant oppositionist. Using 'moral card' is completely subjective. Please demonstrate conclusively that I have done this. I have specifically stated that there is no evidence that Arthur leaked.
Don't you think its ironic that you are using emotive terms to describe my supposedly emotive terms? If pointing out others supposed moral failings is playing the moral card, aren't you the most keen on using the 'moral card' on RSC? Do you have the self-awareness to admit this?
Bob Dubery
2013-07-23 06:03:31 UTC
<snip>
Post by eusebius
I took your statement to mean I was morally posturing.
You took it correctly.
<snip>
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
I'm saying it's prudent because he might not be able to introduce it at a later stage. Rather like being mirandised, in which process you are told that introducing something later that you could have but did not declare earlier on will not be well received.
Fair enough- but then as you point out, this was certainly leaked to the press, a rather nasty tactic.
Maybe. Maybe it was just a flapping mouth - as I suggested elsewhere. That it got to the press is beyond dispute. How and why that happened is not clear.

How it really effects anything that will happen in the conciliation hearing is not clear to me. If it goes to a court case with a jury sitting, then, yes, maybe. Though in that case it CA might leak in order to create the impression that Arthur is a whinger.
jzfredricks
2013-07-23 06:13:09 UTC
Post by Bob Dubery
Maybe. Maybe it was just a flapping mouth - as I suggested elsewhere. That it got to the press is beyond dispute. How and why that happened is not clear.
Based on past performance, most betting men would blame the law firm.

So what? All's fair in love and war. MArther might struggle to get another top level job, though.
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-07-23 08:48:47 UTC
@jz
Rubbish. He's a shoe-in for an Indian gig. Annoying Australians is practically a pre-requisite.

Moby
alvey
2013-07-17 20:14:42 UTC
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
I wouldn't call them leaks, really. They appear to be in documents lodged
with the court...available to anyone for a processing fee.
That's not correct. They're highly confidential. Arthur's team of leeches,
Harmers, are widely suspected of being the source as they have recent form
for this. SMH quote; "Harmers has become known for its maximum-impact
tactics in cases like Kristy Fraser-Kirk's sexual harassment suit against
former David Jones chief executive Mark McInnes, and a similar claim made
by former speaker Peter Slipper staffer James Ashby.
In the latter case, Mr Ashby's solicitor, Michael Harmer, was found by
Justice Steven Rares to have made "scandalous irrelevant" allegations,
while ruling that the case was an abuse of the judicial process. Mr Harmer
is currently appealing that finding."

Who knows what the facts are? There's one thing that's certain though,
cricket's not the winner.
Mike Holmans
2013-07-17 20:44:36 UTC
Post by alvey
Who knows what the facts are? There's one thing that's certain though,
cricket's not the winner.
As is always the case when people resort to the law, the lawyers will
be.

Cheers,

Mike
--
eusebius
2013-07-18 02:51:56 UTC
Post by alvey
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
I wouldn't call them leaks, really. They appear to be in documents lodged
with the court...available to anyone for a processing fee.
That's not correct. They're highly confidential. Arthur's team of leeches,
Harmers, are widely suspected of being the source as they have recent form
for this. SMH quote; "Harmers
That's them. Rather an ironic name. Poor Wendy.
Post by alvey
has become known for its maximum-impact
tactics in cases like Kristy Fraser-Kirk's sexual harassment suit against
former David Jones chief executive Mark McInnes,
Oh the one for $37 M? Always wondered how they came up with that figure.
Post by alvey
and a similar claim made
by former speaker Peter Slipper staffer James Ashby.
In the latter case, Mr Ashby's solicitor, Michael Harmer, was found by
Justice Steven Rares to have made "scandalous irrelevant" allegations,
while ruling that the case was an abuse of the judicial process. Mr Harmer
is currently appealing that finding."
A rather damning decision.
Bharat Rao
2013-07-18 02:15:53 UTC
Post by Dechucka
Good riddance Mickey Arthur, you are now going on like a prat
How can it be Arthur's fault if confidential documents he filed have been leaked by other parties? He certainly is allowed legal redress and as far as I can tall filed documents that were supposed to be private,

Bharat
eusebius
2013-07-18 02:58:42 UTC
Post by Bharat Rao
Post by Dechucka
Good riddance Mickey Arthur, you are now going on like a prat
How can it be Arthur's fault if confidential documents he filed have been leaked by other parties? He certainly is allowed legal redress and as far as I can tall filed documents that were supposed to be private,
What if his own legal team have 'tactically' released that information in order to gain maximum publicity for the case and maximum collateral damage for CA? From whom will he seek legal redress then?
Bob Dubery
2013-07-18 06:41:37 UTC
Post by eusebius
Post by Bharat Rao
Post by Dechucka
Good riddance Mickey Arthur, you are now going on like a prat
How can it be Arthur's fault if confidential documents he filed have been leaked by other parties? He certainly is allowed legal redress and as far as I can tall filed documents that were supposed to be private,
What if his own legal team have 'tactically' released that information in order to gain maximum publicity for the case and maximum collateral damage for CA? From whom will he seek legal redress then?
WHat if they haven't?

It seems to me that there's a presumption that it must be Arthur or his lawyers who leaked the documents. What if somebody at CA leaked them? Or what if somebody went over to the court house, paid the fee for the copies, took them back to the editorial room and went through them to see what would make for juicy copy?
eusebius
2013-07-18 21:30:28 UTC
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by eusebius
What if his own legal team have 'tactically' released that information in order to gain maximum publicity for the case and maximum collateral damage for CA? From whom will he seek legal redress then?
WHat if they haven't?
It seems to me that there's a presumption that it must be Arthur or his lawyers who leaked the documents. What if somebody at CA leaked them? Or what if somebody went over to the court house, paid the fee for the copies, took them back to the editorial room and went through them to see what would make for juicy copy?
Well that is pretty fanciful, considering the exact same scenario happened in 2 high profile cases involving the same legal team. I know you like to play Devil's Advocate, but really isn't that just the more likely, commonsense view?
Dechucka
2013-07-18 22:09:19 UTC
Post by eusebius
Post by Bharat Rao
Post by Dechucka
Good riddance Mickey Arthur, you are now going on like a prat
How can it be Arthur's fault if confidential documents he filed have
been leaked by other parties? He certainly is allowed legal redress and
as far as I can tall filed documents that were supposed to be private,
What if his own legal team have 'tactically' released that information in
order to gain maximum publicity for the case and maximum collateral damage
for CA? From whom will he seek legal redress then?
WHat if they haven't?

It seems to me that there's a presumption that it must be Arthur or his
lawyers who leaked the documents. What if somebody at CA leaked them? Or
what if somebody went over to the court house, paid the fee for the copies,
took them back to the editorial room and went through them to see what would
make for juicy copy?

=======================================================

I haven't seen the documents but from previous experience the court
documents set out the claim but do not go into detail. Looking at who would
benefit leaking the details and the "form" of certain parties suggests
strongly where the leaks came from.

The funniest one is discrimination because he is a SA, if that exists why
was he employed in the first place
jzfredricks
2013-07-18 22:11:39 UTC
Post by Dechucka
The funniest one is discrimination because he is a SA, if that exists why
was he employed in the first place
Wait for the evidence.
You can be both employed and treated differently whilst employed.
Dechucka
2013-07-18 23:21:25 UTC
Post by jzfredricks
Post by Dechucka
The funniest one is discrimination because he is a SA, if that exists why
was he employed in the first place
Wait for the evidence.
You can be both employed and treated differently whilst employed.
true, I am waiting should be good
Dechucka
2013-07-18 23:35:29 UTC
Post by Dechucka
Post by jzfredricks
Post by Dechucka
The funniest one is discrimination because he is a SA, if that exists why
was he employed in the first place
Wait for the evidence.
You can be both employed and treated differently whilst employed.
true, I am waiting should be good
I should add that I am not suggesting that he shouldn't have his day in
court but it is obvious from CA's pov he is and has acted like a typical
whinging white SA who like all white SAs is an apartheid supporter who has
racial problems with Australians
jzfredricks
2013-07-18 23:40:09 UTC
Post by Dechucka
I should add that I am not suggesting that he shouldn't have his day in
court but it is obvious from CA's pov he is and has acted like a typical
whinging white SA who like all white SAs is an apartheid supporter who has
racial problems with Australians
DAFUQ!

I can only assume your account has been hacked, because not even you are dumb enough to post this.
Dechucka
2013-07-19 00:17:51 UTC
Post by jzfredricks
Post by Dechucka
I should add that I am not suggesting that he shouldn't have his day in
court but it is obvious from CA's pov he is and has acted like a typical
whinging white SA who like all white SAs is an apartheid supporter who has
racial problems with Australians
DAFUQ!
I can only assume your account has been hacked, because not even you are
dumb enough to post this.
Oh sorry did I forget the smiley?

Sorry ;-)
Bharat Rao
2013-07-19 06:05:00 UTC
Post by Dechucka
I should add that I am not suggesting that he shouldn't have his day in
court but it is obvious from CA's pov he is and has acted like a typical
whinging white SA who like all white SAs is an apartheid supporter who has
racial problems with Australians
ROFL...

Bharat
c***@gmail.com
2013-07-20 11:47:27 UTC
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by jzfredricks
Post by Dechucka
The funniest one is discrimination because he is a SA, if that exists
why
was he employed in the first place
Wait for the evidence.
You can be both employed and treated differently whilst employed.
true, I am waiting should be good
I should add that I am not suggesting that he shouldn't have his day in
court but it is obvious from CA's pov he is and has acted like a typical
whinging white SA who like all white SAs is an apartheid supporter who has
racial problems with Australians
I was wondering if you are taking the piss here? Surley you must be

"CA's POV - he is and has acted like a typical whinging white SA who like all white SAs is an apartheid supporter who has racial problems with Australians"

Well if you arent taking the piss well done for proving Mickey Arthur's point.

I will also try not to be insulted that you think I supported apartheid.
c***@gmail.com
2013-07-20 13:09:27 UTC
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by jzfredricks
Post by Dechucka
The funniest one is discrimination because he is a SA, if that exists
why
was he employed in the first place
Wait for the evidence.
You can be both employed and treated differently whilst employed.
true, I am waiting should be good
I should add that I am not suggesting that he shouldn't have his day in
court but it is obvious from CA's pov he is and has acted like a typical
whinging white SA who like all white SAs is an apartheid supporter who has
racial problems with Australians
I was wondering if you are taking the piss here? Surley you must be
"CA's POV - he is and has acted like a typical whinging white SA who like all white SAs is an apartheid supporter who has racial problems with Australians"
Well if you arent taking the piss well done for proving Mickey Arthur's point.
I will also try not to be insulted that you think I supported apartheid.
Withdrawn - You were taking the piss..

No point in me saying much more since I seem to agree with Bob and Mike


What I dont understand is the level of indigence shown on this board.

Why are some people peed off that Arthur is taking action.
If his action is unjustified it will be chucked out of court and it will cost him money.

He is an employee that has been sacked.
We dont know what the contract says of course but termination will be covered.
Dechucka
2013-07-20 21:07:04 UTC
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by jzfredricks
Post by Dechucka
The funniest one is discrimination because he is a SA, if that exists
why
was he employed in the first place
Wait for the evidence.
You can be both employed and treated differently whilst employed.
true, I am waiting should be good
I should add that I am not suggesting that he shouldn't have his day in
court but it is obvious from CA's pov he is and has acted like a typical
whinging white SA who like all white SAs is an apartheid supporter who has
racial problems with Australians
I was wondering if you are taking the piss here? Surley you must be
"CA's POV - he is and has acted like a typical whinging white SA who like
all white SAs is an apartheid supporter who has racial problems with
Australians"
Well if you arent taking the piss well done for proving Mickey Arthur's point.
I will also try not to be insulted that you think I supported apartheid.
Withdrawn - You were taking the piss..
No point in me saying much more since I seem to agree with Bob and Mike
What I dont understand is the level of indigence shown on this board.
Why are some people peed off that Arthur is taking action.
If his action is unjustified it will be chucked out of court and it will cost him money.
He is an employee that has been sacked.
We dont know what the contract says of course but termination will be covered.
totally agree with you about him taking the action
eusebius
2013-07-21 14:00:42 UTC
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by jzfredricks
Post by Dechucka
The funniest one is discrimination because he is a SA, if that exists
why
was he employed in the first place
Wait for the evidence.
You can be both employed and treated differently whilst employed.
true, I am waiting should be good
I should add that I am not suggesting that he shouldn't have his day in
court but it is obvious from CA's pov he is and has acted like a typical
whinging white SA who like all white SAs is an apartheid supporter who has
racial problems with Australians
I was wondering if you are taking the piss here? Surley you must be
"CA's POV - he is and has acted like a typical whinging white SA who like all white SAs is an apartheid supporter who has racial problems with Australians"
Well if you arent taking the piss well done for proving Mickey Arthur's point.
I will also try not to be insulted that you think I supported apartheid.
Withdrawn - You were taking the piss..
No point in me saying much more since I seem to agree with Bob and Mike
What I dont understand is the level of indigence shown on this board.
Why are some people peed off that Arthur is taking action.
If his action is unjustified it will be chucked out of court and it will cost him money.
He is an employee that has been sacked.
We dont know what the contract says of course but termination will be covered.
His legal action probably will earn him some cash, and one rightly expects conditions of tenure to be maintained and if not there is a right for compensation.
But his whole tenure is a sorry mess and is best forgotten, and it has proven to be an abject failure in almost every respect. I have zero sympathy for him. The whole homework business was extremely pathetic and embarrassing for all involved. And the nastiness of the payback seems to be directed at the players, a no-no for a coach surely (can't he wait for the tell-all book?) I don't see him getting a coaching gig anytime in the near future.
Dechucka
2013-07-20 21:05:21 UTC
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Dechucka
Post by Dechucka
Post by jzfredricks
Post by Dechucka
The funniest one is discrimination because he is a SA, if that exists
why
was he employed in the first place
Wait for the evidence.
You can be both employed and treated differently whilst employed.
true, I am waiting should be good
I should add that I am not suggesting that he shouldn't have his day in
court but it is obvious from CA's pov he is and has acted like a typical
whinging white SA who like all white SAs is an apartheid supporter who has
racial problems with Australians
I was wondering if you are taking the piss here? Surley you must be
yes I am
Post by c***@gmail.com
"CA's POV - he is and has acted like a typical whinging white SA who like
all white SAs is an apartheid supporter who has racial problems with
Australians"
Well if you arent taking the piss well done for proving Mickey Arthur's point.
I will also try not to be insulted that you think I supported apartheid.
Bharat Rao
2013-07-18 12:34:50 UTC
Post by eusebius
Post by Bharat Rao
How can it be Arthur's fault if confidential documents he filed have been leaked by other parties? He certainly is allowed legal redress and as far as I can tall filed documents that were supposed to be private,
What if his own legal team have 'tactically' released that information in order to gain maximum publicity for the case and maximum collateral damage for CA? From whom will he seek legal redress then?
My comment about "legal redress" is that Arthur is certainly allowed to file against CA for "legal redress for unfair termination." Regardless of whether or not you believe he was fairly dismissed, you surely cannot take away his right to seek legal redress.

Given that he is allowed to file, he certainly is allowed to include any and all information that would help his case in his filing. Once you allow that, then you can't call him a pratt for the contents of his confidential documents...

And the notion that his team may have leaked the documents is recent -- wasn't part of your summarization of Arthur as a "prat."

Bharat
eusebius
2013-07-18 21:38:25 UTC
Post by Bharat Rao
Post by eusebius
Post by Bharat Rao
How can it be Arthur's fault if confidential documents he filed have been leaked by other parties? He certainly is allowed legal redress and as far as I can tall filed documents that were supposed to be private,
What if his own legal team have 'tactically' released that information in order to gain maximum publicity for the case and maximum collateral damage for CA? From whom will he seek legal redress then?
My comment about "legal redress" is that Arthur is certainly allowed to file against CA for "legal redress for unfair termination." Regardless of whether or not you believe he was fairly dismissed, you surely cannot take away his right to seek legal redress.
Of course.
Post by Bharat Rao
Given that he is allowed to file, he certainly is allowed to include any and all information that would help his case in his filing. Once you allow that, then you can't call him a pratt for the contents of his confidential documents...
And the notion that his team may have leaked the documents is recent -- wasn't part of your summarization of Arthur as a "prat."
Bharat
Well I guess it is my gut reaction to his (I guess he might feel 'tit for tat') backstabbing of the players and his failure to take responsibility for their lack of discipline and poor performance. And the timing, during an Ashes series seems convenient. I can possibly overlook that (the timing that is) for reasons others have proffered in the thread, also we can possibly give Arthur benefit of the doubt that he didn't collude in any way with the media strategy of Harmers (so appallingly revealed in the Fraser-Kirk and Ashby cases).

It's difficult for me and I would suggest others to not view Arthur as a whiner, a twat, and a failure.
h***@gmail.com
2013-07-18 03:09:51 UTC
Post by Bharat Rao
How can it be Arthur's fault if confidential documents he filed have been leaked by other parties? He certainly is allowed legal redress and as far as I can tall filed documents that were supposed to be private,
What if he leaked them?
Or what if his lawyers leaked them?
Bharat Rao
2013-07-18 12:36:32 UTC
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Bharat Rao
How can it be Arthur's fault if confidential documents he filed have been leaked by other parties? He certainly is allowed legal redress and as far as I can tall filed documents that were supposed to be private,
What if he leaked them?
Or what if his lawyers leaked them?
Prove that, and nail him. But this outrage against Arthur preceded any notion (which is recent) that he leaked them -- just more of a "how dare he say those things."

Arthur, regardless of what you think of him, is allowed to seek legal redress for unfair termination. Once you grant that, you can't call him a prat for doing just that with all the means at his disposal.

Bharat
Dechucka
2013-07-18 22:10:31 UTC
Post by Bharat Rao
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Bharat Rao
How can it be Arthur's fault if confidential documents he filed have
been leaked by other parties? He certainly is allowed legal redress
and as far as I can tall filed documents that were supposed to be
private,
What if he leaked them?
Or what if his lawyers leaked them?
Prove that, and nail him. But this outrage against Arthur preceded any
notion (which is recent) that he leaked them -- just more of a "how dare
he say those things."
Arthur, regardless of what you think of him, is allowed to seek legal
redress for unfair termination. Once you grant that, you can't call him a
prat for doing just that with all the means at his disposal.
you are correct however he is a prat
Bharat Rao
2013-07-19 06:04:11 UTC
Post by Dechucka
Post by Bharat Rao
Arthur, regardless of what you think of him, is allowed to seek legal
redress for unfair termination. Once you grant that, you can't call him a
prat for doing just that with all the means at his disposal.
you are correct however he is a prat
I'm in complete agreement with you here. I thought he was a complete prat after Homework-Gate, and his seeming reluctance to biff Warner for a much greater transgression, confirmed the opinion.

However, his suit did nothing to make him more of a prat -- if anything, his willingness to fight tooth and nail and stick it to his former employers, diminishes his prat-ness as it were, IMO.

Bharat
eusebius
2013-07-21 13:49:14 UTC
Post by Bharat Rao
Post by Dechucka
Post by Bharat Rao
Arthur, regardless of what you think of him, is allowed to seek legal
redress for unfair termination. Once you grant that, you can't call him a
prat for doing just that with all the means at his disposal.
you are correct however he is a prat
I'm in complete agreement with you here. I thought he was a complete prat after Homework-Gate, and his seeming reluctance to biff Warner for a much greater transgression, confirmed the opinion.
However, his suit did nothing to make him more of a prat -- if anything, his willingness to fight tooth and nail and stick it to his former employers, diminishes his prat-ness as it were, IMO.
Bharat
I don't absolve CA from this mess one iota. But the tactics IMO are pretty low. If team harmony was delicate before, now it must be pretty shattered. Not saying that Arthur personally leaked, but those details had to become public sooner than later, and for at least some of them their purpose seems only to humiliate the players (rather than provide any evidence for mistreatment on the part of CA- or is he saying it was the players fault he was a failure? If so it is still a bizarre strategy. His value as a keeper of discipline must have been about nil).