Was Terry Wallace paid?

[top40]

I know for you RedandWhiteOnline veterans, this is an oldie (but a goodie?).

However.

On this week's Footy Show Terry Wallace was interviewed by Sam Newman. Newman is basically a class clown idiot. Nevertheless, the absence of subtlety from Sam can make for a real good television interview.

Wallace was bluntly asked by Newman:

"Were you paid by the Sydney Swans, notwithstanding that they ultimately went for Paul Roos to coach"

Wallace danced around the question like a very skilled spin doctored trained politician. He diverted about working hard in the immediate years after 2002 for the Fox Footy Channel and other media outlets. He also suggested that his financial arrangements were personal. Yet at the end of the day he could not say the word (or similar words):

"I deny that I was ever paid by the Sydney Swans"

[573v30]

I reckon he was paid, but that's just my opinion.

[Bloody Hell]

In all the years since this event I have never seen anything to suggest otherwise.

That's all we have to go on. Irrefutable proof that two negatives make a positive.

[ScottH]

I think most accept that he was paid to some extent, although it has never been confirmed.

I've been assured it did happen, but not sure if I trust the source,it came from within the club to a colleague.

[CureTheSane]

Don't really care if he was.
It's just business.
Who here would complain about any event which occurred which inevitably resulted in us winning the flag?

[Wardy]

exactly - Wallace had signed a contract - the Swans reneged on it, its business, its simple - he would be compensated in some way out of court - otherwise if it had have gone to Court, it would have cost a motza not only in settlement, but the legal fees would have been horrendous. So for roughly $100,000 it was a good decision to say "thanks for comin, sorry about the outcome, good luck in the future, cheers!.

[goswannie14]

I agree, who cares?

[Damien]

I did enjoy the interview as it was the first time Terry has said that he was under the impression he was going to Sydney. It did seem clear from last night that he was probably paid something and has a confidentiality agreement for life. Pretty bad from our management when you consider that Roos would have deserved at least the opportunity to apply and I think even Pagan was available at that point.

I never really believed the story back then but based on last night, it does make it very interesting. He probably would have been coaching the Swans if he had resigned the week after instead of pre the final round of 2002.

[Doctor J.]

Don't know for certain.
Certainly don't care.

[connolly]

The consumate pro. Whenever is he not paid?

[satchmopugdog]

The consumate pro. Whenever is he not paid?

Exactly...and now he is talking about the Gold Coast. They would have to be stupid to have him as the coach..they have Guy McKenna up there now and I would punt for him ahead of Mr. Image anytime.
To me Wallace is poison.

If he was paid it really sticks in my craw to think he got money out of us, but it was money well spent not to have him infecting the place.

For all the rants about some people on here about the qualities of Roos he brings a much better ethos to the club than Mr. Slippery. Used car salesman anyone?

[ShockOfHair]

I'd pay again to make sure that Wallace doesn't coach the Swans.

[Wardy]

I'd pay again to make sure that Wallace doesn't coach the Swans.

I reckon there would be 15 clubs thinking the same thing!!!;)

[ROK Lobster]

The consumate pro. Whenever is he not paid?Surely you, of all people, would agree that if Wallace and the club had a contract then Wallace should have been compensated when the Swans pulled out of the deal. We wont go into any liability that Roos may have to Wallace for his involvement in inducing the Swans to break their promise to Terry.

[Plugger46]

I reckon there would be 15 clubs thinking the same thing!!!;)

I actually think Richmond's list is alright. Seems a silly thing to say when they're 2-8 but I think whoever takes them on really has something to work with.

[ShockOfHair]

I actually think Richmond's list is alright. Seems a silly thing to say when they're 2-8 but I think whoever takes them on really has something to work with.

Sure, they gave Geelong a run for their money and should have knocked off Port and us.

[Mr Magoo]

Sure, they gave Geelong a run for their money and should have knocked off Port and us.

It should be considering the draft picks they have had over the past few years. Saw an article recently pointing out the picks they had and if the talent doesnt develop then the recruiters should have been sacked before wallace.

[liz]

Surely you, of all people, would agree that if Wallace and the club had a contract then Wallace should have been compensated when the Swans pulled out of the deal. We wont go into any liability that Roos may have to Wallace for his involvement in inducing the Swans to break their promise to Terry.

:)

[Hartijon]

I actually think Richmond's list is alright. Seems a silly thing to say when they're 2-8 but I think whoever takes them on really has something to work with.I agree! Whoever has them has some great talent to work with.They should be 4:6 and I would be more worried playing them this week than Hawthorn. Is Roosey in the running for the job?

[laughingnome]

I agree! Whoever has them has some great talent to work with.They should be 4:6 and I would be more worried playing them this week than Hawthorn. Is Roosey in the running for the job?

Will Richmond seek a deal with Malthouse for him to leave Collingwood to coach Richmond next year only for the caretaker coach to win 8 from their last 10 and have fans revolt demanding the caretaker be instated instead leaving Richmond having to pay Malthouse out?

[Ruda Wakening]

Exactly...and now he is talking about the Gold Coast. They would have to be stupid to have him as the coach..they have Guy McKenna up there now and I would punt for him ahead of Mr. Image anytime.



Richmond should go after Guy McKenna.

[DST]

Don't care, the club made the right decision to go with the players and supporter sentiment and appointed Roos, if it meant they had to pay Wallace something then I have no issue with that.

DST
:D

[floppinab]

Surely you, of all people, would agree that if Wallace and the club had a contract then Wallace should have been compensated when the Swans pulled out of the deal. We wont go into any liability that Roos may have to Wallace for his involvement in inducing the Swans to break their promise to Terry.


Nicely done. But I remember being livid at the time and it still is a concern that those responsible for signing Wallace on prior to him clearing his situation at the Bulldogs is inidicative of how poorly the club was being run at the time. I'd like to think Roos has influenced things at all levels of the club that anything like that would ever happen again.

[connolly]

Surely you, of all people, would agree that if Wallace and the club had a contract then Wallace should have been compensated when the Swans pulled out of the deal. We wont go into any liability that Roos may have to Wallace for his involvement in inducing the Swans to break their promise to Terry.

More to the point Dick perhaps induced the Wallet to break his contract with the Doggies. As Terry Terrific actually did no work for us he wouldn't have been paid. (I presume it was an employment contract) Why was he paid? Hush money? Was there a signing on fee? Was there a probationary period to the contract? Did the contract have penalties against us if Dick failed to deliver for the Wallet and he didn't actually take the position? What sort of contract was it FFS?? Has any member of the club seen a copy of the "contract"? Any answers Dick? In terms of the Corporations Act why doesn't Dick comply with the fiduciary obligations of company directors and at least report on the "Contract"? Also in terms of equitable remedy neither Dick nor the Wallet had clean hands did they?

[bedford]

Great move by the club to pay Wallace $186,000 to get rid of him and putting on Roos, as there would have been no flag under Wallace.

[ScottH]

Denied in the HS today, by the Club.

[ROK Lobster]

More to the point Dick perhaps induced the Wallet to break his contract with the Doggies. As Terry Terrific actually did no work for us he wouldn't have been paid. (I presume it was an employment contract) Why was he paid? Hush money? Was there a signing on fee? Was there a probationary period to the contract? Did the contract have penalties against us if Dick failed to deliver for the Wallet and he didn't actually take the position? What sort of contract was it FFS?? Has any member of the club seen a copy of the "contract"? Any answers Dick? In terms of the Corporations Act why doesn't Dick comply with the fiduciary obligations of company directors and at least report on the "Contract"? Also in terms of equitable remedy neither Dick nor the Wallet had clean hands did they?Your lack of understading of the law is quite remarkable, as is your ability to simply dribble crap when trying to get out of a corner.

[satchmopugdog]

Your lack of understading of the law is quite remarkable, as is your ability to simply dribble crap when trying to get out of a corner.


It's great entertainment but.

[Xie Shan]

Great move by the club to pay Wallace $186,000 to get rid of him and putting on Roos, as there would have been no flag under Wallace.

Money well spent IMO. I guess it is possible to buy a flag then!!

[The Big Cat]

The club said today that the contact between Wallace and the club was instigated by Wallace's management and there were no payments or contracts. Wallace just assumed he was wanted in Sydney.

What really pees me off though is certain media types, Carro in particular, who run the line that Wallace was stiff because the swans appointed Roos and went on to win a flag and Wallace took Richmond over Hawthorn and the hawks went on to a premiership. Carro's implication was that Wallace was dudded out of a flag twice!

[satchmopugdog]

The club said today that the contact between Wallace and the club was instigated by Wallace's management and there were no payments or contracts. Wallace just assumed he was wanted in Sydney.

What really pees me off though is certain media types, Carro in particular, who run the line that Wallace was stiff because the swans appointed Roos and went on to win a flag and Wallace took Richmond over Hawthorn and the hawks went on to a premiership. Carro's implication was that Wallace was dudded out of a flag twice!

Neither team would ahve won a premiership with Wallace as he is too image conscious. He wouldnot have instituted therazor/ youth policy of Hawthorn and he would not have been able to get the mostout ofour Cortinas as hewould not like playing an unpopular game style. Too many short term negatives for him.

[Lohengrin]

More to the point Dick perhaps induced the Wallet to break his contract with the Doggies. As Terry Terrific actually did no work for us he wouldn't have been paid. (I presume it was an employment contract) Why was he paid? Hush money? Was there a signing on fee? Was there a probationary period to the contract? Did the contract have penalties against us if Dick failed to deliver for the Wallet and he didn't actually take the position? What sort of contract was it FFS?? Has any member of the club seen a copy of the "contract"? Any answers Dick? In terms of the Corporations Act why doesn't Dick comply with the fiduciary obligations of company directors and at least report on the "Contract"? Also in terms of equitable remedy neither Dick nor the Wallet had clean hands did they?
I think you just ate a small legal dictionary and vomited it onto the page without really understanding why.

[CureTheSane]

The club said today that the contact between Wallace and the club was instigated by Wallace's management and there were no payments or contracts. Wallace just assumed he was wanted in Sydney.

What really pees me off though is certain media types, Carro in particular, who run the line that Wallace was stiff because the swans appointed Roos and went on to win a flag and Wallace took Richmond over Hawthorn and the hawks went on to a premiership. Carro's implication was that Wallace was dudded out of a flag twice!

Yeah, one one hand she'll say that Wallace was cheated out of a flag.
This implies that the players would have won that flag regardless of who was coaching the,.
Then on the other hand she'll come out and say that Sydney were not a spectacular team and their style of play won them the flag.
Guess where the style of play comes from?

Can't have it both ways.....

[connolly]

I think you just ate a small legal dictionary and vomited it onto the page without really understanding why.

Really such a brilliant ripost. Tell us why??

[connolly]

Your lack of understading of the law is quite remarkable, as is your ability to simply dribble crap when trying to get out of a corner.

To continue the boxing analogy ( a sport i know a little about) its called counter punching. Now perhaps you can try to get off the ropes and explain how Wallace could have been paid under a "contract"that Dick says doesn't exist. And then you can explain what service Terry Terrific actually performed for the club to warrant any remuneration under an allegedly non-existent contract? If he was paid compensation under a "without prejudice"settlement perhaps you can explain how that wouldn't constitute a breach of directors duties to the corporation, given that apparently there was no contract or if there was, there is no documented decision to engage Terry? Or are we a club that not only supports players that breaks contracts but pays pretenders that don't have them??? Over to you Rumpole.

[connolly]

Can't have it both ways.....

She can you know. She calls the Wallett a failure (fair call) in her latest missile to the wallet of Terry Terrific.

Wallace's Tigers insipid - RFNews - realfooty.com.au (http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/rfnews/wallaces-tigers-insipid/2009/06/06/1244234424290.html)

[ROK Lobster]

To continue the boxing analogy ( a sport i know a little about) its called counter punching. Now perhaps you can try to get off the ropes and explain how Wallace could have been paid under a "contract"that Dick says doesn't exist. And then you can explain what service Terry Terrific actually performed for the club to warrant any remuneration under an allegedly non-existent contract? If he was paid compensation under a "without prejudice"settlement perhaps you can explain how that wouldn't constitute a breach of directors duties to the corporation, given that apparently there was no contract or if there was, there is no documented decision to engage Terry? Or are we a club that not only supports players that breaks contracts but pays pretenders that don't have them??? Over to you Rumpole.You suggested that you thought Terry was paid. Why don't you explain why? I'd also like to hear about the fiduciary duty under the Corporations Act - that really had me scratching my head. To whom is that duty owed? If my understanding is correct Sydney Swans Limited is a corporation limited by guarantee.

[ROK Lobster]

C'mon Connolly - it's been 20 minutes since you started your reply. Just cut and paste a big whack of text from Austlii and assume that I wont have the time or inclination to bother with it.

I would also advise against getting to close to suggesting that Colless has acted in a manner that may be contrary to the best financial interests of the club. Scott and Frog wont be thrilled if you get them sued. Given your previous comments about the Swans' not being strong enough to pursue legal remedies, when they actually have a cause of action on the basis of one of your comments, they just might have a go.

[connolly]

C'mon Connolly - it's been 20 minutes since you started your reply. Just cut and paste a big whack of text from Austlii and assume that I wont have the time or inclination to bother with it.

I would also advise against getting to close to suggesting that Colless has acted in a manner that may be contrary to the best financial interests of the club. Scott and Frog wont be thrilled if you get them sued. Given your previous comments about the Swans' not being strong enough to pursue legal remedies, when they actually have a cause of action on the basis of one of your comments, they just might have a go.

Fair go. i have breakfast responsibilities here. If a company officer did make a binding promise (not saying they did but theoretically if they did - no defemation here) they would possibly be in breach of s 180(1) breach of the standard of care and diligence. The standard is objective on the reasonable person test. Any payments to Wallace if they were made on the authorization of a company officer (including a chairman, director or company secretary) as a consequence of compensation for breach of binding obligations on the club which were (if they were) given to Wallace before the selection process for the coaching position was begun or completed would be held to be a breach of the reasonable test or reckless. There are defenses of good faith, reasonableness and belief in the best interests of the corporation. There is also a common law business judgement rule. I wish i could cut and paste this stuff. Try reading Fords Principles of Corporations Law pp. 337 - 441.

[ROK Lobster]

Fair go. i have breakfast responsibilities here. If a company officer did make a binding promise (not saying they did but theoretically if they did - no defemation here) they would possibly be in breach of s 180(1) breach of the standard of care and diligence. The standard is objective on the reasonable person test. Any payments to Wallace if they were made on the authorization of a company officer (including a chairman, director o0r company secretary) as a consequence of compensation for breach of binding obligations on the club which were 9if they were) given to Wallace before the selection process for the coaching position was bgun or completed would be held to be reckless. There are defenses of good faith, reasonalbleness and belief in the best interests of the corporation. There is also a common law business judgement rule. I wish i could cut and paste this stuff. Try reading Fords Principles of Corporations Law pp. 337 - 441. Back to brekkieThat makes no sense at all and does not answer any of the questions asked. You argue like Bevan plays footy. Tough and tenacious without any real skill, flair or awreness. Keep backing into those packs mate and enjoy your breakfast.

[Emerald Hill]

Don't really care if he was.
It's just business.
Who here would complain about any event which occurred which inevitably resulted in us winning the flag?

Spot on! Who cares? We pulled the right rein! 6 years in a row of finals including one magnificent premiership! Thanks Roosy!!!!!!!

[connolly]

That makes no sense at all and does not answer any of the questions asked. You argue like Bevan plays footy. Tough and tenacious without any real skill, flair or awreness. Keep backing into those packs mate and enjoy your breakfast.

Thanks for the complement. The fiduciary duty is statutory and is owed to shareholders. If the action of company officer(s), in offering a contract to a prospective employee, outside the authorized selection process, (if it was) has the consequence of significant financial loss to the corporation, such as payments to a person who doesnt perform any service to the club then issue of breach of duty surely arises. If there were any financial penalties or compensatory payments that arose with the selection of Roos over Wallace (if in fact that did happen) why wouldn't a responsible company officer declare that and proceed with the undertaking to Wallace (if that in fact did happen) in protection of the financial interests of the club?(if in fact that was the case). Too hard?

[royboy42]

Sometimes it seems that the legal thoughts presented here are more for 'see how smart I am' purposes, rather than to help the less eddificated amongst us to understand what the heck is going on!

[caj23]

I went to a breakfast last year where he spoke, he claimed a heads of agreement was signed, and he was paid a sum by the swans after roos was appointed

[Yakety_Yak]

Wallace said at press conference last week something like " there were confidentiality issues arising from legal matters that prevented explainatory comment" refering to his departure from Bulldogs.

Had to be either Dogs or Swans... confidentiality implies remuneration.

Why Dogs?

If either Colless (Chairman) Templeton (CEO) had encouraged his departure there would be good reason to shut Wallace up following the fans outcry R22 Kel& Dunks last game. It was well & truly leaked Wallace was likely given the nod. Paul Roos had commented he would be "very disappointed if agreement had been reached.

To keep face and preserve relationships with Swans fans, Paul Roos and especially for (possibly Dogs greatest ever player) K Templeton the relationship with his old club!


Sydney Swans FC can easily claim honestly ....NO PAYMENT made to Wallace!

Just pay his management company a fee "for coach recruitment search" to be passed on from their account...providing they hold such confidentiality agreement.


The BEST MONEY ever spent by Swans!!!!!!!!!!

[Primmy]

Sometimes it seems that the legal thoughts presented here are more for 'see how smart I am' purposes, rather than to help the less eddificated amongst us to understand what the heck is going on!

HeHeHeHe!!!! :rofl

Who cares! He stuffed the dogs (couldn't care less) and he stuffed the Tiggs, and I couldn't care less here either. He can go and stuff another club for all I care. Just not the Swans.

[ROK Lobster]

Thanks for the complement. The fiduciary duty is statutory and is owed to shareholders. If the action of company officer(s), in offering a contract to a prospective employee, outside the authorized selection process, (if it was) has the consequence of significant financial loss to the corporation, such as payments to a person who doesnt perform any service to the club then issue of breach of duty surely arises. If there were any financial penalties or compensatory payments that arose with the selection of Roos over Wallace (if in fact that did happen) why wouldn't a responsible company officer declare that and proceed with the undertaking to Wallace (if that in fact did happen) in protection of the financial interests of the club?(if in fact that was the case). Too hard?A fiduciary duty is equitable and not statutory. The Swans do not have shareholders. You say that a breach arises, but do not say to whom the duty is owed nor do you say what you think the remedy should be. You seem to think that because you would like to see something happen that someone should have a legal obligation to do it. Yes, it appears it is too hard.

[ROK Lobster]

Sometimes it seems that the legal thoughts presented here are more for 'see how smart I am' purposes, rather than to help the less eddificated amongst us to understand what the heck is going on!
I would not pay too much attention to Connolly's legal opinions. They are way off the mark and I doubt he has professional indemnity insurance.

[caj23]

Wallace said at press conference last week something like " there were confidentiality issues arising from legal matters that prevented explainatory comment" refering to his departure from Bulldogs.

Had to be either Dogs or Swans... confidentiality implies remuneration.

Why Dogs?

I'm struggling to remember the exact reason (according to TW) but it was the dogs. Think it had something to do with relationships with certain members of the dogs hierarchy

[Rob-bloods]

Terry is a slime, he may well have got some hush money for going away, if we definitely paid, as Caroline Wilson always insists we did and Colless always insists we did not, how come there has been no real evidence, Basil Sellars always gets the guernsey because that fits easily, he is a benefactor of the Swans and he will not respond.

And so bloody what if we did. Section 1.1 of the "Laws of Premiership" state we got Roos'y for around 300k at the start and a Premiership and Richmond got Wallace for 4 million over 5 years and are in a bigger mess than they started.

So if we had to sling the overly brown and even more overrated Wallace to go away that's a ripper.