Rory Gallagher

[marty34]

What is breach of contract?

I thought 'GAA' managers don't sign contracts?

I dont think its that type of contract, the parties aren't correct so I would imagine its the (technical) contract that's created when you become a member of the association.

Ok David. Thanks.

What's the basis of that do you reckon?

[David McKeown]

What is breach of contract?

I thought 'GAA' managers don't sign contracts?

I dont think its that type of contract, the parties aren't correct so I would imagine its the (technical) contract that's created when you become a member of the association.

Ok David. Thanks.

What's the basis of that do you reckon?

I'd be speculating but possibly the claim would be that he wasn't subjected to the procedures in the official guide and suffered a detriment as a result. The claim being that effectively the Official Guide defines the scope of the contractual relationship.  Again though I am guessing a bit.

[Interstellar]

Burns way overstepped his authority on this and I for one hope he gets taken to the cleaners. Whatever about respect for Gallagher, Burns has lost his over his intervention. BTW he never explained his 'road back for Gallagher'.

[marty34]

Burns way overstepped his authority on this and I for one hope he gets taken to the cleaners. Whatever about respect for Gallagher, Burns has lost his over his intervention. BTW he never explained his 'road back for Gallagher'.

I always liked Burns as he was an interesting and enaging speaker but since he's took office, he's full of soundbites and everything, his speeches especially seems to be full of too much effort.

 

[APM]

Uh oh...

Why so? It's one thing suing someone -  winning is another thing entirely.

Would those in HQ really loose much sleep over it? Would the GAA not just hand this to their insurers?

Are the different sides in the court of public opinion likely to change? Are reputations really going to be restored or damaged by the outcome? 

[Interstellar]

Uh oh...

Why so? It's one thing suing someone -  winning is another thing entirely.

Would those in HQ really loose much sleep over it? Would the GAA not just hand this to their insurers?

Are the different sides in the court of public opinion likely to change? Are reputations really going to be restored or damaged by the outcome? 

At this stage Gallagher has nothing to lose but Burns does. Maybe if Gallagher came out in front of the cameras and made a tearful apology celeb like he might be forgiven. Is that what Burns wants? Doubt that is ever going to happen.

[LC]

Is this not a bit of a gamble on RG's part?

Surely he would not be entitled to legal aid therefore if this goes the whole way and he loses he could be out a few £.

[Saffron_sam20]

Uh oh...

Why so? It's one thing suing someone -  winning is another thing entirely.

Would those in HQ really loose much sleep over it? Would the GAA not just hand this to their insurers?

Are the different sides in the court of public opinion likely to change? Are reputations really going to be restored or damaged by the outcome? 

At this stage Gallagher has nothing to lose but Burns does. Maybe if Gallagher came out in front of the cameras and made a tearful apology celeb like he might be forgiven. Is that what Burns wants? Doubt that is ever going to happen.

I think this is the type of thing burns was alluding to but Gallagher maintains his innocence so why would he? That's the bit that I've always had issue with, people saying he needs to apologise but if he's denying it then he's not going to.

Fair play to RG here, everyone knows burns overstepped and regardless of what happens maybe it'll make him think twice before going on a wim on serious matters

[general_lee]

Interesting approach by RG. Why isn't he suing his ex wife?

[Silver hill]

Burns way overstepped his authority on this and I for one hope he gets taken to the cleaners. Whatever about respect for Gallagher, Burns has lost his over his intervention. BTW he never explained his 'road back for Gallagher'.

I always liked Burns as he was an interesting and enaging speaker but since he's took office, he's full of soundbites and everything, his speeches especially seems to be full of too much effort.

 
Interesting take on this....would you rather his speeches were full of too little effort??

[quit yo jibbajabba]

Happy medium, it's not the Jarlath show

[GTP]

Interesting approach by RG. Why isn't he suing his ex wife?

Speculating, but perhaps it could be because she is the mother of their children?
I can't imagine a potentially expensive and public civil case would do anyone benefit either financially or emotionally.

[ck]

Interesting approach by RG. Why isn't he suing his ex wife?

Precisely!

[David McKeown]

Interesting approach by RG. Why isn't he suing his ex wife?

I would imagine that he has probably received legal advice about at the minimum the technical defences available and that's not making any comment either way in respect of whether the defence of truth would apply.

Range of other factors likely at play as well. Very very rare and difficult for someone to sue their accuser when criminal reports have been made. Difficult to see what it would achieve etc

[marty34]

Burns way overstepped his authority on this and I for one hope he gets taken to the cleaners. Whatever about respect for Gallagher, Burns has lost his over his intervention. BTW he never explained his 'road back for Gallagher'.

I always liked Burns as he was an interesting and enaging speaker but since he's took office, he's full of soundbites and everything, his speeches especially seems to be full of too much effort.

 
Interesting take on this....would you rather his speeches were full of too little effort??

Maybe just in the middle - I'd be happy with that.