Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!
-
@ACT-Crusader if that is indeed true, then it raises two issues:
- Rennie should get a better lawyer.
- That's remarkably petty from RA. A new coach is going to change things anyway.
-
@ACT-Crusader In the Sydney Morning Herald it's worded this way:
Dave Rennie, who will be precluded from coaching another team or country this year.
I kind of understand the other "country" thing in a RWC year, although, what harm could it possibly do to the Wallabies, if Rennie was offered the Head Coach position of - say - the USA, who won't be playing at the RWC? And not allowing him to coach "another team"? If that means a club team, I really don't understand why.
-
-
@Bovidae said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
England should have done the same for Jones, or did they not pay out the remainder of his contract?
I’m not sure but I think I saw it reported that Eddie’s contract was paid out. Either way it goes against the grain to sack a bloke and then restrict his career, whatever the payout.
-
@Catogrande yeah the old restraint of trade clauses...but I guess if he is still paid in full through to end of year it isn't affecting his ability to earn a living, which is where those clauses usually come unstuck for most jobs?
-
@Catogrande said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Bovidae said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
England should have done the same for Jones, or did they not pay out the remainder of his contract?
I’m not sure but I think I saw it reported that Eddie’s contract was paid out. Either way it goes against the grain to sack a bloke and then restrict his career, whatever the payout.
I agree, but it would have been funny and just highlights the pettiness and hypocrisy from RA.
-
@Bovidae said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Catogrande said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Bovidae said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
England should have done the same for Jones, or did they not pay out the remainder of his contract?
I’m not sure but I think I saw it reported that Eddie’s contract was paid out. Either way it goes against the grain to sack a bloke and then restrict his career, whatever the payout.
I agree, but it would have been funny and just highlights the pettiness and hypocrisy from RA.
Yeah, they’re not highlighting the benefits of working for them are they? Employer of the year 🙄
-
@nostrildamus said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Dan54 said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Stargazer said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Dan54 Didn't Deans "get another gig", or didn't he "go for another (international) gig"? Did he even apply?
Yep well apart from Eddie, I don't know any coaches that have reapplied after getting fired from test rugby. But you right he never tried, that I know of.
John Mitchell went on to coach the mighty Eagles.
Yep fair enough Nost, I also think that Cheika was kind of let go from Wallabies and doing Pumas now too, so perhaps I needed to think a bit more.Lol
-
@taniwharugby said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Catogrande yeah the old restraint of trade clauses...but I guess if he is still paid in full through to end of year it isn't affecting his ability to earn a living, which is where those clauses usually come unstuck for most jobs?
Are they enforceable in Australia?
-
@Kirwan said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@taniwharugby said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Catogrande yeah the old restraint of trade clauses...but I guess if he is still paid in full through to end of year it isn't affecting his ability to earn a living, which is where those clauses usually come unstuck for most jobs?
Are they enforceable in Australia?
Googled it;
"Restriction of trade clauses are enforceable up to a certain extent. In order for them to be enforced, they must protect the employer’s legitimate business interest (i.e. a trade secret) or the reputation of the business."
I guess player details and team tactics could be seen as trade secrets, but seems a stretch to me. Lawyer up Rennie and hit the gym.
-
I’d think that it would go further than just a restriction on earning a living. What about future career prospects? Would age be taken into account? The effects on career prospects would be very different for a bloke in his 40s to someone in his late 50s/early 60s, no?
-
@taniwharugby said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Catogrande yeah the old restraint of trade clauses...but I guess if he is still paid in full through to end of year it isn't affecting his ability to earn a living, which is where those clauses usually come unstuck for most jobs?
If he's being paid through to the end of the contract then maybe his is still actually contracted, just with a change of duties to 'sweet f a'. That way they control him.
-
@Crucial said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@taniwharugby said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Catogrande yeah the old restraint of trade clauses...but I guess if he is still paid in full through to end of year it isn't affecting his ability to earn a living, which is where those clauses usually come unstuck for most jobs?
If he's being paid through to the end of the contract then maybe his is still actually contracted, just with a change of duties to 'sweet f a'. That way they control him.
In either case it's very petty, and considering the changes likely to be made by Mr Maths, completely pointless.
-
@Kirwan said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Crucial said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@taniwharugby said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Catogrande yeah the old restraint of trade clauses...but I guess if he is still paid in full through to end of year it isn't affecting his ability to earn a living, which is where those clauses usually come unstuck for most jobs?
If he's being paid through to the end of the contract then maybe his is still actually contracted, just with a change of duties to 'sweet f a'. That way they control him.
In either case it's very petty, and considering the changes likely to be made by Mr Maths, completely pointless.
For all we know it was a negotiated out. Remember that he has a family with him and maybe this situation suits them. They have time together and can plan a relocation in their own time.
-
@Crucial said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Kirwan said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Crucial said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@taniwharugby said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Catogrande yeah the old restraint of trade clauses...but I guess if he is still paid in full through to end of year it isn't affecting his ability to earn a living, which is where those clauses usually come unstuck for most jobs?
If he's being paid through to the end of the contract then maybe his is still actually contracted, just with a change of duties to 'sweet f a'. That way they control him.
In either case it's very petty, and considering the changes likely to be made by Mr Maths, completely pointless.
For all we know it was a negotiated out. Remember that he has a family with him and maybe this situation suits them. They have time together and can plan a relocation in their own time.
Perhaps, Rennie doesn't strike me as a guy that dumb though. Family doesn't have to move if you get a new job, especially for a short period like a year.
-
@Kirwan said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Crucial said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Kirwan said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Crucial said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@taniwharugby said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Catogrande yeah the old restraint of trade clauses...but I guess if he is still paid in full through to end of year it isn't affecting his ability to earn a living, which is where those clauses usually come unstuck for most jobs?
If he's being paid through to the end of the contract then maybe his is still actually contracted, just with a change of duties to 'sweet f a'. That way they control him.
In either case it's very petty, and considering the changes likely to be made by Mr Maths, completely pointless.
For all we know it was a negotiated out. Remember that he has a family with him and maybe this situation suits them. They have time together and can plan a relocation in their own time.
Perhaps, Rennie doesn't strike me as a guy that dumb though. Family doesn't have to move if you get a new job, especially for a short period like a year.
True, but as I said, maybe he is happy with this situation.
So much assumption on his part happening in this thread and projection of personal thoughts without the facts of the situation. -
@Crucial said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Kirwan said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Crucial said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Kirwan said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Crucial said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@taniwharugby said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Catogrande yeah the old restraint of trade clauses...but I guess if he is still paid in full through to end of year it isn't affecting his ability to earn a living, which is where those clauses usually come unstuck for most jobs?
If he's being paid through to the end of the contract then maybe his is still actually contracted, just with a change of duties to 'sweet f a'. That way they control him.
In either case it's very petty, and considering the changes likely to be made by Mr Maths, completely pointless.
For all we know it was a negotiated out. Remember that he has a family with him and maybe this situation suits them. They have time together and can plan a relocation in their own time.
Perhaps, Rennie doesn't strike me as a guy that dumb though. Family doesn't have to move if you get a new job, especially for a short period like a year.
True, but as I said, maybe he is happy with this situation.
So much assumption on his part happening in this thread and projection of personal thoughts without the facts of the situation.Well, it's it's a discussion forum after all, for us to share our opinions and speculate.
Weird I have to keep reminding a few posters about this.
-
@Kirwan said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Crucial said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Kirwan said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Crucial said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Kirwan said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Crucial said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@taniwharugby said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
@Catogrande yeah the old restraint of trade clauses...but I guess if he is still paid in full through to end of year it isn't affecting his ability to earn a living, which is where those clauses usually come unstuck for most jobs?
If he's being paid through to the end of the contract then maybe his is still actually contracted, just with a change of duties to 'sweet f a'. That way they control him.
In either case it's very petty, and considering the changes likely to be made by Mr Maths, completely pointless.
For all we know it was a negotiated out. Remember that he has a family with him and maybe this situation suits them. They have time together and can plan a relocation in their own time.
Perhaps, Rennie doesn't strike me as a guy that dumb though. Family doesn't have to move if you get a new job, especially for a short period like a year.
True, but as I said, maybe he is happy with this situation.
So much assumption on his part happening in this thread and projection of personal thoughts without the facts of the situation.Well, it's it's a discussion forum after all, for us to share our opinions and speculate.
Weird I have to keep reminding a few posters about this.
Stating speculation as fact or strong likelihood asks for it to be criticised as well. Not referring to your post btw.
-
Seems entirely reasonable of RA to me. Every senior exec contract I’ve seen has a similar clause. As others note, enforceability can be hard, but Rennie would need to actively challenge it
Many companies have stuff they’d like keep private, I can’t see why the Wallabies would be any different.
End of the day he’s getting paid out, I can’t quite accept the argument that it’s affecting his career by somehow making him irrelevant so quickly
As someone said, allowing him to work with a Tier 2 or lower country would be fairly harmless, though you’d rightly expect him to do that for free or to refund RA any earnings offset
-
@voodoo said in Rennie Sacked, Eddie In!:
though you’d rightly expect him to do that for free or to refund RA any earnings offset
Nah, RA are the ones that terminated his contract (presuming his lawyer isn't a clown). Although it seems based on the reporting thus far that he's a contracted employee of RA's to fulfil various duties. If it stipulated he was the Head Coach, then it would be cut and dry that he's been replaced and the contract with RA has been breached, leading to remedies.
I maintain (in my ignorance) that Head Coach isn't full of trade secrets. We know how they play based on extensive analysis. We know that Eddie would change how they play (and some selections). There's nothing I can think of material Rennie could advise other Unions.
