Chris Turner - Which Rovers?

[Dodge]

Has it been decided which Rovers Chris Turner will be playing for this year?

HAs he been playing for anyone in pre-season?

If he's a Shamrock player, did Sligo get any compensation?

[SkStu]

the contract he had with Sligo is valid. No court in the land will dispute that.

[grayzer1888]

As good a player he is, I think he should hang his head in shame the way he's treated Sligo. This guy is purely motivated by money and nothing else - the Sligo lads may be able to clarify but I believe they paid him a lump sum (5k I think) to keep him covered for the closed season and then he fecks off to Shams for a better contract. I'm very surprised Shams have got involved with a player who had an agreement with another club, I thought O'Neill would be better than that but he's obviously not :-(

[dahamsta]

Crap split here (http://foot.ie/threads/132303-Chris-Turner-Which-Rovers). Save the drama queen rubbish for the pub.

[pineapple stu]

the contract he had with Sligo is valid. No court in the land will dispute that.
What do you base that on?

[wexfordned]

What do you base that on?

The fact that he signed his name to a contract with Sligo is fairly obvious I would have thought? The problem is he decided to sign a second one with Shamrock.

Grayzer is right though, the way Chris Turner has treated Sligo is a disgrace.

O'Neill & Shamrock's antics have been digraceful as well. If O'Neill & Shamrocks had any integrity (a big if I know) they would have walked away from Turner once they found out he had previously signed a deal with Sligo.

[bluewhitearmy]

The fact that he signed his name to a contract with Sligo is fairly obvious I would have thought? The problem is he decided to sign a second one with Shamrock.

Grayzer is right though, the way Chris Turner has treated Sligo is a disgrace.

O'Neill & Shamrock's antics have been digraceful as well. If O'Neill & Shamrocks had any integrity (a big if I know) they would have walked away from Turner once they found out he had previously signed a deal with Sligo.

How does that answer pineapple stu's question? The fact that he signed a contract does't make it valid as the fai wouldn't register him with that contract because it was not valid and new ones were brought out that were valid and he signed one of them with Shamrock Rovers.

[dong]

What do you base that on?

"A contract is an agreement giving rise to obligations enforced or recognised by law.
The parties to the contract dictate the form and the contents. So a contract may be in writing, verbal, may be implied by inference from the conduct of both parties, or may be some combination of the above."

Doolin - Principles of Irish law.

The important piece is in italics. Turner, by turning out for training and, crucially, accepting a signing on fee and wage payments, is bound to the contract he signed with us. Whether it was written on the back of a cigarette packet is of no relevance in Law.

The other crucial aspects of contract ie an agreement, an intention to be contractually bound, consideration and an offer made and acceptance of that offer appear to be in order also.

[dong]

How does that answer pineapple stu's question? The fact that he signed a contract does't make it valid as the fai wouldn't register him with that contract because it was not valid and new ones were brought out that were valid and he signed one of them with Shamrock Rovers.

Can we get off the registration issue if we are looking at whether the contract is valid in law or not?
What the FAI accept for registration is their own business, but a contract is a contract and Turner has breached that.

[RoversHead]

The interpretation of contract law by some on here is priceless ,lets scrap the heralded standerd playing contract and use fag packets since the documentation matters not in a court of law according to Sligo.Any money recieved by Turner was in good faith that he could be regesterd as a player by the league and play for a club that conducts its buissness according to league rules .Sligo messed him about not the other way round.

[dahamsta]

More crap moved to the bin. Next time I'm dumping the lot.

If you have a problem with a post, report it. That goes for mods too.

[Jicked]

"A contract is an agreement giving rise to obligations enforced or recognised by law.
The parties to the contract dictate the form and the contents. So a contract may be in writing, verbal, may be implied by inference from the conduct of both parties, or may be some combination of the above."

Doolin - Principles of Irish law.

The important piece is in italics. Turner, by turning out for training and, crucially, accepting a signing on fee and wage payments, is bound to the contract he signed with us. Whether it was written on the back of a cigarette packet is of no relevance in Law.

The other crucial aspects of contract ie an agreement, an intention to be contractually bound, consideration and an offer made and acceptance of that offer appear to be in order also.

So as a contract law expert, if this fag packet contract is deemed valid (and kudos for Sligo for paying players lump sums and handshake agreements, great way of doing business), wont a judge in an employment case like this just call for restitution and for Turner to simply pay back the €5k or whatever he was given ?

[redobit]

How does that answer pineapple stu's question? The fact that he signed a contract does't make it valid as the fai wouldn't register him with that contract because it was not valid and new ones were brought out that were valid and he signed one of them with Shamrock Rovers.

By that logic then every player that had a contract from last season became a free agent when this new contract was brought out.
For me the fact he hasnt played in any of Shams preseason friendlies tells its own story.

[dong]

So as a contract law expert, if this fag packet contract is deemed valid (and kudos for Sligo for paying players lump sums and handshake agreements, great way of doing business), wont a judge in an employment case like this just call for restitution and for Turner to simply pay back the €5k or whatever he was given?

Look Jicked, I didn't say that the contract was not written. I was merely making a point as to how I see it.
I would imagine that, as you say, a Judge would order Turner to pay that money back and then he can play for the Hoops if he wants. No problem.
I'm not an expert and never claimed to be. I merely quoted from a text to validate my point.

[Dodge]

No, they could also sue for damages (to reputation, for potential lost revenue (as they can't replace a player) etc etc). Would Shamrock then be in trouble for tapping up an employee of another club (Or would the lack of a registration over ride the need to approach SLigo for his transfer)?

There's no way its as cut and dry as either side are making out.

[redobit]

So as a contract law expert, if this fag packet contract is deemed valid (and kudos for Sligo for paying players lump sums and handshake agreements, great way of doing business), wont a judge in an employment case like this just call for restitution and for Turner to simply pay back the €5k or whatever he was given ?

... and kudos to o'Neill for pubically tapping up turner and kudos to Shams for signing a player under contract at another club, great way to do business ...

[dong]

... and kudos to o'Neill for pubically tapping up turner

Hold on, this is surely illegal.The dirty fecker!!!

[Jicked]

... and kudos to o'Neill for pubically tapping up turner and kudos to Shams for signing a player under contract at another club, great way to do business ...

Well I'd imagine Rovers are saying that he wasn't under contract, or that for some reason he could walk away from the contract, which would mean there was no tapping up, and he wasn't under contract.

Anecdotally it seems that Sligo payed Turner a lump sum on the understanding he'd then sign a proper contract at the start of the new season/pre-season. After Sligo didn't win the cup/qualify for Europe, they revised their budget downwards and tried to get Turner to sign for a lower deal. Turner walked away at that point and signed for Shamrock Rovers (having turned them down originally to sign for Sligo's original offer + lump sum). The matter will turn on whether or not Sligo had a contract with him, giving him a lump sum on the understanding he'd sign a deal at a later date might not cut it, and if Sligo then offered him a lower deal than they had originally suggested he'd also be able to walk away from any gentleman's agreement they had.

[redobit]

Well I'd imagine Rovers are saying that he wasn't under contract, or that for some reason he could walk away from the contract, which would mean there was no tapping up, and he wasn't under contract.

Anecdotally it seems that Sligo payed Turner a lump sum on the understanding he'd then sign a proper contract at the start of the new season/pre-season. After Sligo didn't win the cup/qualify for Europe, they revised their budget downwards and tried to get Turner to sign for a lower deal. Turner walked away at that point and signed for Shamrock Rovers (having turned them down originally to sign for Sligo's original offer + lump sum). The matter will turn on whether or not Sligo had a contract with him, giving him a lump sum on the understanding he'd sign a deal at a later date might not cut it, and if Sligo then offered him a lower deal than they had originally suggested he'd also be able to walk away from any gentleman's agreement they had.

And you know that how?

Too much speculation and BS going on here, thread should be closed.

[pineapple stu]

He said it was anecdotal; he didn't present it as fact. It does appear plausible though.

If every thread was closed because someone posted something that wasn't backed up on the internet, the forum would have to close.

[Mr A]

If I recall correctly, when Kenna left Galway to join Pats, Pats had to compensate Galway because although his new contract was not signed, Kenna had accepted payments and therefore it held, so there just might be something in the Sligo line on this.

None of the parties look like coming out of this particularly well though. Sligo because of the way the deal would appear to have been conducted, Rovers for signing a player when they must have had doubts about his contractual status and Turner for letting all this happen. I guess though there are issues partly because while clubs want to build a squad as soon as the season ends, the FAI don't register players until much later. Hard to see a way around that to be honest.

[Redie]

Well I'd imagine Rovers are saying that he wasn't under contract, or that for some reason he could walk away from the contract, which would mean there was no tapping up, and he wasn't under contract.
Anecdotally it seems that Sligo payed Turner a lump sum on the understanding he'd then sign a proper contract at the start of the new season/pre-season. After Sligo didn't win the cup/qualify for Europe, they revised their budget downwards and tried to get Turner to sign for a lower deal. Turner walked away at that point and signed for Shamrock Rovers (having turned them down originally to sign for Sligo's original offer + lump sum). The matter will turn on whether or not Sligo had a contract with him, giving him a lump sum on the understanding he'd sign a deal at a later date might not cut it, and if Sligo then offered him a lower deal than they had originally suggested he'd also be able to walk away from any gentleman's agreement they had.

How would Shams know that there might be some reason he might be able to walk away from his contract if they had not talked to him - i.e tapped him up.

Also how do you explain the 'Sean Connor Clause' refered to by Turner himself when he left Dundalk for Rovers - if there was no contract.

[pineapple stu]

How would Shams know that there might be some reason he might be able to walk away from his contract if they had not talked to him - i.e tapped him up.
The obvious hypothesis -

Turner downs down offer from Rovers to sign for Sligo for E100 a week more.
Sligo renege on this and offer him, say, E200 a week less instead.
Turner says "Feck this" and goes back to Rovers asking if their original deal still stands.

[Jicked]

How would Shams know that there might be some reason he might be able to walk away from his contract if they had not talked to him - i.e tapped him up.



The rumours are that Rovers offered him a deal at X amount a week. Sligo offered him more. He signed for Sligo. Sligo then offered him a lessor deal than they had originally. Turner didn't want to do a deal at that price and re-approached Shamrock Rovers trying to get the amount they originally offered.

Its fairly clear that he didn't suddenly discover a new love for all things Shamrock Rovers and had a change of heart. For some reason the money that Rovers originally offered him (which he turned down) later became a better option for him. Shamrock Rovers wouldn't have increased their offer to him after he had signed for Sligo, if they did that why wouldn't they have just offered him that amount in the original negotiations when he chose Sligo over them.

It makes sense that he thought he'd be making a certain amount at Sligo, only for that to turn out not to be the case. In such a situation the original contract with Sligo would be ripped up.

[The Observer]

The rumours are that Rovers offered him a deal at X amount a week. Sligo offered him more. He signed for Sligo. Sligo then offered him a lessor deal than they had originally. Turner didn't want to do a deal at that price and re-approached Shamrock Rovers trying to get the amount they originally offered.

Its fairly clear that he didn't suddenly discover a new love for all things Shamrock Rovers and had a change of heart. For some reason the money that Rovers originally offered him (which he turned down) later became a better option for him. Shamrock Rovers wouldn't have increased their offer to him after he had signed for Sligo, if they did that why wouldn't they have just offered him that amount in the original negotiations when he chose Sligo over them.

It makes sense that he thought he'd be making a certain amount at Sligo, only for that to turn out not to be the case. In such a situation the original contract with Sligo would be ripped up.

Whereas hypothetically this makes sense my personal opinion of this situation is that Dodge is closer to anyone else here when he suggests theres more to this from both sides than is currently out in the public domain, therefore it is hard to point the finger of blame at any of the three parties involved with any clear knowledge until theres a proper investigation carried out to ascertain the legalities, both in terms of contract law & the registration of the player.

[SkStu]

What do you base that on?

i dont think anyone can dispute that a signed contract is not a valid contract once there is offer, acceptance and consideration unless you know of some legal precedent that i am unaware of in the last 3 years since i stopped working in the field.

To answer other points - courts will not look at whether a contract is not in the appropriate format required by the FAI. They will look to uphold that contract based on the intentions of the parties to be bound by the contract.

Obviously im not privy to the contents of the contracts and was unaware that Sligo had offered him reduced terms so yes, that may change things. Even if Turner refused those reduced terms he is still bound by the terms of the original signed contract and as long as Sligo are abiding by it then i dont see how he can play for Shams.

without the documents to hand there are a lot of If's and but's, of course, but contributors here can only go on what they know in order to form an opinion, surely?

[The Observer]

i dont think anyone can dispute that a signed contract is not a valid contract once there is offer, acceptance and consideration unless you know of some legal precedent that i am unaware of in the last 3 years since i stopped working in the field.

To answer other points - courts will not look at whether a contract is not in the appropriate format required by the FAI. They will look to uphold that contract based on the intentions of the parties to be bound by the contract.

Obviously im not privy to the contents of the contracts and was unaware that Sligo had offered him reduced terms so yes, that may change things. Even if Turner refused those reduced terms he is still bound by the terms of the original signed contract and as long as Sligo are abiding by it then i dont see how he can play for Shams.

without the documents to hand there are a lot of If's and but's, of course, but contributors here can only go on what they know in order to form an opinion, surely?

Given your knowledge of contract law, would it not be considered a breach of the original contract however if the terms as agreed by both parties were altered without the consent of one of the parties? ie 'if' the club agreed to pay a player say €500pw & the player signs on that basis, & thelub then alter the terms surely without the players consent they are the ones to actually be considered to have broken the terms of the original contract? Obviously this is hypothetical as none of us are in possession of the clear facts surrounding the Turner case however, i merely ask as in my field a change in terms in a legally binding contract such as this would be considered a breach of said contract.

[SkStu]

yep. It would be a breach of contract if they were paying 500 and then dropped it to 400.

But, and this is what my post was getting at, it sounds like (and its hard to say without all the info) a contract was signed for lets say 500 p/w. X amount of weeks were paid up front (lump sum) and then at some stage Sligo came and said we are going to offer you 400 p/w instead. Turner refuses but Sligo, as long as they continued to pay him the same amount, havent breached contract merely attempted to renegotiate the terms of the existing contract.

Thats my take.

[The Observer]

A fair enough perspective, it begs the question though once one of the parties seeks to renegotiate the terms of the contract for this to happen the renegotiation would have to be entered into willingly by both parties i would assume? If therefore the original terms were breached before both parties had agreed to a renegotiation surely it would render the original contract null & void with the party breaching the contract open to legal action? (My legal knowledge on contract law is work specific so i'd bow to anyones superior knowledge in this area)
Even in the event of a renegotiation isnt the result of such that both parties agree to cancel the original contract with the newly negotiated one superceding it? So if no renegotiation was entered into wouldnt the first party be required to continue meeting the terms as outlined in the contract to not be the first to breach it until new terms are agreed?
Either way it looks like the argument is between Chris Turner & Sligo Rovers, until thats resolved i cant see the FAI registering him for any club othe than Sligo.

[SkStu]

yeah, youre right - i kind of stated that in my previous post.

On your first paragraph, a one sided alteration of the terms would render the contract null and void and amount to an offer of a new contract.

It really does turn on the facts of the case and as you said, the determination on the contract with Sligo will impact the validity of his Shamrock Rovers contract.

[GerByrne]

I heard he's going to alternate between the teams. Playing one week for Sligo and the following week for Shams..When they play against each other he'll play one half for each side.. FACT!!!

[avvenalaf]

I heard he's going to alternate between the teams. Playing one week for Sligo and the following week for Shams..When they play against each other he'll play one half for each side.. FACT!!!

That can't work. What happens if he gets a red card in the first half?. Will the other side have to play with ten men in the second half?

[dahamsta]

The other side will put on a leprechaun. I would have thought that was obvious.

[pineapple stu]

Either that or they'll arrange a Leinster Senior Cup game as the half-time entertainment.

[marinobohs]

The other side will put on a leprechaun. I would have thought that was obvious.

or perhaps Michael O'Neill will investigate and find there was no offence at all :cool:

This type of issue has been threatening to arise for some time - clubs signing players on work contracts which are different to FAI contracts (Bohs signed six/seven players while under a transfer embargo). While the FAI can refuse to register a player (thus he could not play in any matches under their juristiction) a club could still hold a player to contract - if a Sligo had the money they could honour the contract with the porn star just to stop him signing for shams !

The sooner the better the League instruct clubs that the only contracts allowed are the official contracts and ensure that budgets etc are signed off early - thus enabling clubs to sign players. Almost every club this year signed players before budgets were agreed. Imagine the chaos (and fun) if no club had signed anyone until 2/3 weeks before the season started !

[RoversHead]

Ruling was Turner free agent, free to sign for whoever he wishes,Sligo ten days to appeal.

[Jicked]

Chris Turner is a Hoop. Well, not a Hoop technically yet, but shock horror, the wink and a handshake he had with Sligo has been thrown out by the independent adjudicators. He's a free agent, and will sign for Rovers shortly one would imagine. Nice to see the league continuing to stay tough on such dodgy dealings, but its certainly messed around our pre-season.


Under the rules of the FAI, the Dispute Resolution Chamber sat today to consider the case put forward by Shamrock Rovers F.C., Sligo Rovers F.C., the League of Ireland and Chris Turner on the status of Chris Turner's registration for the 2010 season. The decision of the DRC was that Chris Turner "is not a participant of the National league and is a free agent, entitled to sign for any club and seek registration of an SPC" (standard player's contract). They ruled on some other matters pertaining to the case but of main significance to Shamrock Rovers F.C. is that Chris Turner has been deemed a free agent. Also in their determination was a note that "there is a possibility of an appeal to arbitration pursuant to Article 31 of the SPC and Article 33 of the FAI DRC Regulations within 10 days". Shamrock Rovers F.C. will await developments with regard to any appeal by the noted parties before making any further comment or action.

[Mr A]

Will Turner have to return the signing on fee? It'd only be fair..

[SkStu]

so he didnt sign any valid contract at all? How the hell could they arrive at that conclusion!?!?

what if Sligo appeals the decision of the DRC, Jicked? What will Rovers do then? Continue to pay him until the appeal is heard or what? Genuinely interested and a bit confused.

[Jicked]

Will Turner have to return the signing on fee? It'd only be fair..

If he's deemed a free agent, then there was no contract between the parties. It could be argued it was a payment as consideration for Turner to consider joining Sligo. There's all sorts of legal wranglings, but they'll be between Turner personally and Sligo, and although it would seem equitable for Turner to return the fee there could be a case for him to keep it. Hopefully it serves as a warning to other clubs not to make such dodgy, amateurish deals with players.

[Jicked]

so he didnt sign any valid contract at all? How the hell could they arrive at that conclusion!?!?

what if Sligo appeals the decision of the DRC, Jicked? What will Rovers do then? Continue to pay him until the appeal is heard or what? Genuinely interested and a bit confused.

Rovers simply wouldn't have got involved with Turner unless they were pretty sure that he had no valid deal with Sligo, and hey we've got a pretty good track record when it comes to legal issues so obviously the lawyers know their stuff. If Sligo appeal I'd imagine we would keep paying him as a sign of good faith to our player, then when Sligo lose the appeal Rovers could potentially counter claim for costs or even potentially for damages.

I wasn't surprised at all that we won the case, if you go back a page I said this, and I'd be pretty confident that it turned out to be gospel

Anecdotally it seems that Sligo payed Turner a lump sum on the understanding he'd then sign a proper contract at the start of the new season/pre-season. After Sligo didn't win the cup/qualify for Europe, they revised their budget downwards and tried to get Turner to sign for a lower deal. Turner walked away at that point and signed for Shamrock Rovers (having turned them down originally to sign for Sligo's original offer + lump sum). The matter will turn on whether or not Sligo had a contract with him, giving him a lump sum on the understanding he'd sign a deal at a later date might not cut it, and if Sligo then offered him a lower deal than they had originally suggested he'd also be able to walk away from any gentleman's agreement they had.

On those facts he didn't have a contract, they paid him to consider an offer, which was then revoked, and he chose not to sign their new offer, making him a free agent.

[RoversHead]

[QUOTE=SkStu;1332681]so he didnt sign any valid contract at all? How the hell could they arrive at that conclusion!?!?
Because they had all the facts in front of them ,unlike most on here,as for an appeal lets just say it would not be in their intrest.

[Jicked]

Sligo Rovers are expected to offer Turner another contract. For the craic. See what happens.

If the contract between us and him never existed, shouldn't we be entitled to money back from him? (wages, SOF etc.)

I don't think you ever did pay him wages, you may be entitled to the lump sum (€5k) back, but Turner could argue that that payment was consideration for a deal for him to consider signing for Sligo on the original terms you offered him, that deal was fulfilled, so he can keep his cash. Again, that will be a private law issue and will drag on for some time if Sligo do decide to chase him for the money and an out-of-court settlement isn't reached.

[SkStu]

Because they had all the facts in front of them ,unlike most on here,as for an appeal lets just say it would not be in their intrest.

okay - taken - but youre missing my point - how does he not have a contract with Shamrock Rovers?

[Jicked]

okay - taken - but youre missing my point - how does he not have a contract with Shamrock Rovers?

You mean for Sligo Rovers?

Because Sligo offered him a contract at say €500 per week, and gave him a lump sum to keep his head from turning in the meantime.
Before that deal was finalised Sligo had to scale down their budget after not brushing aside Fingal as they thought, so offered him a lesser deal.
Turner rejected this new deal, and the first offer was now off the table, so he was a free agent.
You can argue that Turner is liable to pay back the lump sum, but not that he had a contract just because he accepted a lump sum payment before a contract was finalised.

[Jicked]

But he still hasn't signed for Shamrock though?

Would be funny if he signed for Bohs now.

Presumably we and Turner reached a decision to set aside his contract, pending the resolution of the arbitration. Now that's resolved, expect him to re-sign the deal with us as to my understanding he's been training with us in the meantime.

[SkStu]

You mean for Sligo Rovers?
.

no, i mean for Shamrock Rovers. He signed two documents right? One with Sligo (and i can understand now how it wasnt a valid contract) and one for Shamrock Rovers. Neither have been deemed to be in effect, right? Im wondering how that is the case...

Rovers1, we wouldnt sign him again. Never played well for us and Fenlon and him had a mutual loathing by all accounts.

edit: your response doesnt make sense Jicked as that would compromise Shamrock Rovers' claim and indicate that they might have felt there was some validity to Sligo's claim. Anyway, dont worry about it - its unfair to expect you or RH to have the answers but it is an interesting question.

[boneym]

Turner has to return the signing on fee plus he was also banned for a few games ( not sure how many ) its not mentioned on the ruling however

[Jicked]

I don't see how it would compromise Rovers' claim, both Turner and Rovers probably agreed to set aside the deal pending the disputes resolution, especially considering how long this thing has dragged on and may still drag on. Rip up that deal, have him train with the squad (and attend games in Rovers tracksuit etc) and sign a new one once everything is done and dusted and he can be registered as ours. It's the sensible way to do it.

[boneym]

The Disputes Resolution Chamber (DRC) today (March 11th) issued its judgement on a case involving Sligo Rovers, Shamrock Rovers and Chris Turner.

The DRC heard that Mr Turner signed a 2009 Standard Players Contract (SPC) with Sligo Rovers FC on 11 November 2009. The FAI League Department refused to register this contract on the basis that the 2009 SPC had been superseded by a 2010 SPC.

Mr Turner subsequently signed a 2010 SPC with Shamrock Rovers FC in January 2010, prompting the Director of the League to bring the matter to the attention of the National League Executive Committee (NLEC), who decided to refer the matter to the DRC.


The DRC today issued its decisions:


1. The Director was entitled to refuse to register the SPC between Mr Turner and Sligo Rovers FC.

2. The Director was entitled to refuse to register the SPC between Mr Turner and Shamrock Rovers FC.

3. The Committee and the Director were entitled to refer the matter to the DRC.

4. Mr Turner is not a Participant in the National League and is a Free Agent, entitled to sign with any club and seek registration of an SPC.

5. Before Mr Turner can be registered, he is to repay the €5,000 paid to him by Sligo Rovers FC.

6. Mr Turner and Sligo Rovers FC are to be the subject of a disciplinary investigation by the National League Director pursuant to Rule 8.1.6 of the Participation Agreement, Schedule One, Section 2.

7. All parties are to bear their own costs, but the administrative costs of the DRC are to be borne by the Committee who referred the matter to the DRC.

8. The parties are reminded of the possibility of an appeal to arbitration pursuant to Article 31 above of the SPC and Article 33 of the FAI DRC Regulations within ten days.