seems a very strange statement from Sheffield - if you were that bothered about the contract before the match - Sheffield should have issued an injunction on Sam before the match forcing him to watch from the sideline - as the result was so one sided after the event I would be very surprised if Sheffield can prove any direct loss through an alledged breach of contract - just looks like more bile from Mr Grumpypants in the lead up to Sunday - file in a recepticle of choice!

I totally agree it's just that I'm just having a hard time believing it's about the "integrity of the game".

lol what a baby, you just know he's doing it this week to try get maximum destructiveness to our grand final week to the players and club, I've no respect for the guy full stop now, pathetic person.

He may well be all those things waddy-fax. It doesn't stop his legal right to proceed tho does it?? He may well feel so aggreived by Sam's actions and Fax's willingness to play him despite an agreement/contract etc, that raising the issue now may well have an effect on the teams prep for Sunday! - again, this is Aston's legal right to do so!

If he's no case, he's going to look really daft. If he has, Sam will pay the price. Fax as a club may also get dragged in.
It will fade out of the news by tomorrow evening, popping up occasionally as progress on the case is reported. Fax fans will lose interest over time and when a decision is made, no bug_ger other than Sam is likely to give a toss!

Exactly. All this crying to the media and the 'won't somebody think of the children!' approach at the moment is just pathetic. These things take a long time to do, I think Aston thinks something will happen this week if he carries on. As you say, it'll be some random evening in 4 months time where Barlow finds out he's been fined 10p or something and no one will care.

Plus it seems to have brought our players together more than making them worry. There's some right banter between them re:this on facebook!

No case to answer - Barlow paid to get out of the contract with the provision for not playing against sheffield in normal course of league games. 'Normal course' being the operative as anything other (ie play offs) could not have been determined at time of agreement.

Barlow honoured his agreement and did not play in the away LEAGUE game (as promised), a game we won easy.

The balance of consideration is too high to expect Barlow to miss 2 games against Sheff AND settle his contract early.

This precident is also set in football where managers would not expect players to miss games they previously were unaware of.

END OF!

Would Aston be ranting and raving if they had won and have it interfear with there Finals preparation . I think not

well you say that, but that's not necessarily the case.
Of course the 'contract' - once it's existance is proven, then the wording is subject to legal argument over the next 12 months or so. If the words 'league programme' is written into what is now an alleged contract, that Barlow and Fax are indeed home dry.
If it's not and it just says throughout 2010, that definition will be the clause subject to legal argument of which a judge will preside over before making his judgement. Whether the fact that Sheffield v Fax in the play offs could be foreseen at the time of signing is largely irrelevant to the case.
And it's not legal precident in this case. A case like this is judged on it's own virtue and on the evidence presented for reasons explained to me that I can neither remember or reliably understand!!
My feeling is that a contract will exist, Aston will have taken legal advice but may not be that confident it wholly supports his case - just my feeling!!

well no he wouldn't. But as it's him that's taking the action why would he. He'd wait until it's best for him and his club to do so !! Don't understand your point.

IMO Sheffields case if they have one, has been weakened by agreeing that Barlow could play in the 9's against them. Surely if they were "that" bothered, they wouldnt have allowed him to play in them games either.

I'm advised that would NOT weaken a case! What does is the subjective wording - that's open to legal argument!!

Oi, its not fair if you are commenting AND getting advise on it!