Giteau threatens to walk if Force don't pay $1m

[Cowboy]

The question I have is that in the Firepower statement of creditors Matt Giteau was only owed ~$70,000 but in the article we are back up to the $1 million mark. Which one is right and if it is a million how did this get missed by the liquidators?

[Flamethrower]

I was under the same impression.

Firepower Debts - Western Force Rugby Supporters Site

[AndyS]

Force supporters would be wary of any moves by ARU...

No kidding - never mind Kanaar (although Dave's point about contractual approaches is an interesting one), what odds the ARU decides that the Force should be responsible for guaranteeing payment having fined them in the past for exactly that?

[.X.]

Once again I am more then willing to be corrected if wrong but this is as I understand it is the facts as explained to me by people in the know.

RugbyWA were penalised (fined) by ARU for arranging the third party sponsorship deals for a number of players.

when Firepower went belly up - RugbyWA sought and were given permission by ARU to discuss with third party sponsors a way of "replacing" moneys that were to have been paid by Firepower to a number of Players.

Any new arrangements for new contracts has to be between player/manager and third party sponsor only

[Swee_82]

Hmmm, nice point by Dave there about Kanaar/Force vs Gits/Brumbies, but that aside...

I'm still stuck on this idea that the Force are responsible for Gits' (and others) private deals going bad.

If he made the decision to come here based on the Firepower deal, and now it's dead he wants to go, fine, whatever, frankly I'm hoping there's a teeny bit more to his character than that (the boy is hardly destitute even if he is short somewhere between $70k and $1 million)

[mudskipper]

The Force were involved in brokering the Firepower deal, I can understand why Giteau wants to hold them accountable. The Force is using what is owed to him as reward for singing a new contract which is unreasonable. Seems like corporate bulling to me...They should square up and start a new deal or let him go if that’s what he wants. There is no point in keeping Matt if he feels he has been cheated by the forum administration and sponsor. The Force has plenty of talented players, if they don’t look after Matt Giteau future players will avoid the signing with the club and it will only damage the long term.

[Burgs]

Welcome mudskipper, interesting place for your first post but anyway...
No team is officially involved in arranging third party deals despite where they may nudge players towards. That is the role of the players agent and the third party.
If a third party sponsor goes belly up for whatever reason, regardless of who it is, it is not the fault of RWA.
They are going above and beyond already in trying to make up the difference in all of the players affected, it is alctually quite unproffesional (if this is actually the case) for him to a) be trying to blackmail them for more and b) allowing the whole incident get into the media.
As I said earlier on a previous post, I think Gits would be better served discussing with his agent why better due diligence was done on his potential sponsors before he moved, this is NOT a RWA issue.

[Jehna]

That is my understanding as well Ex.

There are so many problems with that article its not funny:

1. RugbyWA cannot be blamed for the collapse of Firepower. It is completely outside their control. In theory, they dhoulsn't even be responsible for sorting out any money owed to players under third party contracts because in theory, as the ARU so kindly pointed out with a giant slap of a fine, it has nothing to do with them

2. However, as Ex has pointed out, RugbyWA has placed themselves in the limelight by assuming responsibility for helping to 'fix' the situation and assisting players like Matty to find new sponsorship deals. Frankly, i'm surprised they managed to get a new sponsort to pay any money owed to these players by Firepower given that they are under no obligations to do so.

3. It would be absolutely pointless for Gits to bring litigation against Firepower. We know there is no money left in the company and his contractual payments would be so far down the priority list after liquidation that he'll end up spending more money in litigation costs than anything he might possible recover...which i suspect will be nothing

4. It would also be absolutely pointless for Gits to bring litigation against RugbyWA. As far as i can tell they owe him no contractual obligations to provide third party payments (they are expressly prohibited from even being involved) and their interest in securing new sponsorship deals does not appear to have been consolidated into any sort of written agreement except to say that they will 'try' to replace the monies owed by Firepower. It would be an interesting point to bring to the courts as to what sort of obligations this imposes. Certainly not a legal one but perhaps an equitable duty if RugbyWA made any misrepresentations as to what this would encompase. As far as I can see (without knowing much of the facts), that is his only cause of action. Even with that cause of action, i would think it would be highly unlikely that a court would award him much compensation and certainly not in the form of $1 million. Again, he'd probably spend that trying to find teh evdience to bring that action to trial.

5. If Gits is really demanding $1million then I can only assume he intends it to be a scare tactic to force RugbyWA to pay him money that is owed to him. However, he's yeling at the wrong people....but perhaps the only people left to yell at. Fair enough...as was said $1million is not pocket money even to someone like Gits, but you've got to question whether he is taking his anger out on the wrong people (if this is all true of course)? It doesn't sound like the type of accusation Gits would make given that he has proved to be one of the most level headed guys of his age I've ever met. But, who knows the people who are influencing him? For one...i'm be prepared to say that his lawyer needs a good kick up the butt.

6. If Gits is moving to Canberra for lack of payment, i can only say that I don't think his actions will achieve anything, or at least in terms of what he wants to achieve. Things went to sh*t with Firepower. But it is in the past and there is little more we can do to remedy it now. Staying at the Force or moving to Canberra will do nothing to recompense his loss. It is about the future now (or at least it should be), and which club can now offer him the most - both professionally and personally.

*sigh*

[Tazzmania]

That is my understanding as well Ex.

Things went to sh*t with Firepower. But it is in the past and there is little more we can do to remedy it now. Staying at the Force or moving to Canberra will do nothing to recompense his loss. It is about the future now (or at least it should be), and which club can now offer him the most - both professionally and personally.

Well summed up Jehna, nothing can change what has happened. Hopefully for us he see his future here, not only for himself but for the other Force players that he is mentoring.

[mudskipper]

Giteau has been prudently professional about the matter. He can proceed legally if his council advocate’s that the Third party deal which former Force CEO Peter O’Meara was associated with is now invalid... If he looses he will have to see out his contract with the Force.

Following extract from FOXSPORTS Article. By Tim Clarke
January 07, 2008

…A former Commonwealth Bank executive with previous experience on the boards on the New South Wales and Queensland rugby unions, O'Meara was recruited by Rugby WA in 2005 ahead of the Western Force's inaugural year.

Despite big memberships and improvements on field, the Force's off-field dealings - particularly in recruiting high profile players such as Matt Giteau - put O'Meara at odds with the Australian Rugby Union, eastern states clubs and the media.

Following whispers surrounding O'Meara's relationship with the boss of major sponsor Firepower Tim Johnston, the first major blow came when Rugby WA were hammered with a $150,000 fine by the ARU last year for breaching player contracting protocols.

After consistent denials by O'Meara, the Force were forced to admit to involvement in several breaches of contracting protocols.

These included underwriting third party benefits to players, paying player wages in excess of the maximum permitted by state unions, inappropriate disclosure of player remunerations and offering third party benefits to induce a player to sign.

...unfortunately I think there is more to this...So what if fact and what is invention? Why is the Force administration putting pressure on Giteau before he ends the spring tour?

[AndyS]

It isn't. As reported a couple of days ago...
"It is understood a company in Perth has at least matched the cash component of Giteau's Firepower deal but the offer will be taken off the table if an agreement is not reached by the end of the week."
The Australian

As I see it, the company is essentially prepared to pay him a premium (effectively covering some of his loss), but in turn want to be sure that they are sponsoring him for more than just a single season.

[Bronski Beat]

Giteau threatens to walk if Force don't pay $1m - rugbyheaven.com.au

Is this just another SMH conspiracy?

[Mambo No. 5]

Don't think so as it is on the West website as well...

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.as...ntentID=105273

[.X.]

A bit slow on the uptake today Bronski - did you sleep in? big night on the source?

[AndyS]

Is this just another SMH conspiracy?

No, as there source is clearly the West. They are clearly subliterate morons though, when you read their version against what they are purporting to represent. I suspect they must be hiring failed engineering students rather than anyone that has gone near an english degree.