Can't link the story but get a hold of Chip Le Grand's piece in the Saturday Oz.
After reading it you might as well close this thread.. Holland's claim is exactly what Frawley stated, an opportunity, never a promise or guarantee.
As the goal Umpire would say 'All Clear".
Cheers Bateman
. Here's the article ....
---------------------------
Dinner pitch key to lawsuit
By Chip Le Grand
April 05, 2008
BEN Holland makes an unlikely victim. For 13 years, he has played football for a living. He has been paid well. Some would say too well. Within football circles he is depicted as a mercenary more interested in the colour of money than the colours of his club.
Yet Holland says his lawsuit against the Richmond Football Club and former club president Clinton Casey is more about principle than money. Put simply, Holland claims Clinton made promises in the heat of contract negotiations he never kept.
"They have enticed me to stay by dangling a carrot and they haven't delivered the goods," Holland said. "People made promises and representations. I know for a fact I am not the only one out there that it has happened to. I have had calls from other players. Clubs have to be more accountable for what they say to entice players to stay."
When Holland was hot, there was nothing Richmond wouldn't say or do to keep him. Once he was shot, that commitment snapped as quickly as the cruciate ligament inside his left knee.
When Holland told Richmond on the eve of the 2001 trade period that he had accepted a $1.33 million offer to play for Adelaide for the next three years, such was coach Danny Frawley's volcanic reaction that Holland's manager, Greg Griffin, feared for his life.
Richmond could pay Holland no more than $800,000 over the same period, due to salary-cap restraints, but Frawley and Casey, in a desperate bid to keep him, made one last pitch during a dinner with Holland and his father, John, at a Japanese restaurant.
What was said at that dinner is now the subject of Holland versus Clinton Casey and the Richmond Football Club. A writ has been lodged before the Victorian Supreme Court. Casey and Richmond are waiting to be served. If the case proceeds to trial, it will come down to who to believe.
On October 6, 2001, four men shared a meal and struck a deal. Ben and John Holland swear certain promises were made. Richmond insists they were not.
The promises in question are documented in copious notes taken by the Holland family but not confirmed in writing by the club. They include an opportunity to buy land and shares. Holland further his podiatry business at aged care facilities operated by Casey. Casey would advise Holland's business interests and investments.
According to Holland, the message was clear: "It was, you are not going to be at a loss by staying at the Richmond Football Club. Clinton Casey is a very successful businessman and he can help you out with financial advice and business opportunities. He was going to be like a financial planner."
Whatever Casey said, Richmond got its man. By Monday morning, Holland re-signed. Adelaide football manager John Reid was flabbergasted. Mark Brayshaw, Richmond's then chief executive, heralded the triumph of loyalty over lucre.
Quipped Griffin: "You have got a player who suddenly takes $530,000 less as a consequence of a coffee at Koko's? It must have been a pretty good coffee."
All Holland received in addition to his agreed salary was $4000 in podiatry services. He claims he was never given the opportunity to buy a block of land in Casey's Sandhurst development or to buy shares. Nor was he ever "mentored" by Casey.
"I would have gone to Casey's office once a month demanding to get involved in these projects," Holland said. "They were always coming but never came through. Other players got parcels of land at Sandhurst. I wanted to get involved but it never eventuated. Nothing ever happened."
Had Holland stayed fit and played good football for the next three years, things might have worked out. Instead, his prospects altered dramatically at Subiaco Oval on April 21, 2002, when his left knee buckled in a marking contest.
"He missed the best part of 2002 and when he came back in 2003 it was pretty clear he wasn't a priority in the eyes of Richmond," Griffin said. "I think it was just a case of Casey and Richmond determining there were other players more worthy of being given the commercial opportunities Ben had been promised."
Holland was traded to Melbourne at the end of the 2003 season, since when, his grievance against Casey has been an open secret.
In 2004, he threatened Casey with legal action. That same year, then AFL football operations manager Andrew Demetriou quizzed Holland and Brayshaw on whether his contract with Richmond breached the salary cap. The case re-emerged on Thursday night, when the Nine Network's The Footy Show obtained a copy of Holland's writ. Griffin said the writ was lodged to keep the case within statutory time limits. Richmond and Casey won't be served until the end of this season, when Holland retires as an AFL player.
Richmond chief executive Steven Wright said the club would contest the claim.
"The preliminary advice we have received is they are without foundation and we will vigorously defend those allegations," he said.
It is not clear whether a successful lawsuit will have salary-cap implications for Richmond. Demetriou is concerned it might and has instructed football operations manager Adrian Anderson to investigate the claims. Griffin and Holland believe the undertakings given by Casey don't breach the salary cap.
"The AFL has been aware of the fact for a long time that various club presidents try to create business opportunities and financial opportunities for marquee players," Griffin said. "This has happened 100 times. The difference this time is it didn't happen."
Holland will win no friends at AFL House by pressing his claims. He also appears to have several holes in his case.
The first is the lack of written evidence. The Holland family notes, although detailed, were taken after the fact.
Richmond has found no record of a commercial commitment from Casey to Holland in its 2001 board minutes and Garry Cameron, the only current director serving then, has told president Gary March the issue was never discussed at board level.
In the absence of other documents, Griffin will lean heavily on a letter from Casey to Holland dated October 16, in which he makes non-specific promises to "identify business opportunities" for Holland.
The second hole the fact that Holland and Brayshaw, when questioned at the time about the contract by Demetriou, said that no deal had been struck outside the salary cap.
"When they left my office I thought this was a dead issue," Demetriou said on Melbourne Radio 3AW yesterday.
AFL investigator Ken Wood has subsequently completed an audit of property deals involving Richmond players. In all cases, the players paid market price for the land parcels in question.
The third hole the fact that Holland's case has been in limbo for the best part of four years, is, despite Griffin's explanation for the timing of the writ. Griffin tried to settle the case through correspondence with Casey in 2004, but no further action appears to have been taken until late last year.
Frawley, Brayshaw, Casey and almost the entire board have left the club in the intervening years.
Holland confirmed his meeting with Demetriou but insisted his claims were never properly examined by the AFL.
"Andrew was interested in third-party payments," he said. "The representations made by Richmond were more about investment opportunities and business opportunities."
He denied exhuming an old grievance against Casey.
"I am not just pushing this now. I have been pushing it from the moment Casey first made his representations. It has been there constantly for the past six years.
"It is not really against the Richmond Football Club. It is about the representations they made through Clinton Casey. I am still very fond of the footy club. I just want to hold them accountable for what they say."
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23488173-23211,00.html
