dibo
Well-Known Member
keensy said:Article about the situation in the Express today, my opinion from reading it is that he has no cause for complaint as he signed the contract variation removing the 4th year clause.
Gumprecht, 33, is taking legal action against the club for being denied a fourth year at the Mariners after being persuaded to sign the contract variation.
persuaded? he's going to have to prove some sort of coercion or duress. if he signed it willingly, then its effect will only be limited by the extent to which the variation itself is valid. see below.
keensy said:"On November 26, Lawrie McKinna told me I was not part of the club's plans for next season," Gumprecht said. "I remember because it was my birthday."
keensy said:The option to extend the contract for a year was to become available after Gumprecht played 15 games last season but he signed the contract variation after 10 games. Gumprecht has received a legal opinion suggesting the contract variation is invalid.
that's all well and good, and will be tested in court. if he wins, the club screwed up and they will likely be asked to pay compo. what ramifications this may have on salary caps etc. may have to be sorted with the FFA. gut feeling (not a lawyer so can't offer a proper legal opinion) for me is that it will be treated as buying him out of his contract, and therefore impact the cap.
my guess on the whole matter is it's down to money as much as anything else. gumps will have been on a fair bit of coin, but as other players have developed in the middle of the park it's become clear in lawrie's view that there are better uses for that amount of cap. had gumps been willing to cop a pretty hefty pay cut (commensurate with his drop to squad player from leading man of the midfield) this hubbub may have been avoided.
that would seem to me to fit in with lyall's comments - the door seems to still be slightly ajar there, but gumps is going to have to take a bit of a hit i suspect. lawrie however may not be so keen.