Olympic Council fella Pat Hickey Arrested in Rio

Deise Vu

Deleted User wrote: »

You didn't need to say that was literally all you know about contract law.

Take it from someone after 20 years working contract law, contracts of employment, contracts for the sale of property, contracts of all shapes and sizes...you are as wrong as wrong could be. It all depends on what's in the contract, and of course what might be in legislation which can protect house purchasers, consumers, employees...but very little for commercial parties who omit to specify the grounds on which a contract can be terminated in very clear terms.

Indeed. So you are assuming no Force Majeure and no clauses that THG might have to actually be able to carry out their side of the contract. Do you draft many like that yourself?

Deise Vu

Deise Vu wrote: »

Indeed. So you are assuming no Force Majeure and no clauses that THG might have to actually be able to carry out their side of the contract. Do you draft many like that yourself?

I draft contracts all the time.

You on the other hand sneer about the relevance of law in the interpretation of contracts.

Thanks for the offer of an interesting debate on force majeure, but I'll decline to play with someone who said that literally all there was to say about contract law is "if one side cannot carry out their side of the contract, there is no contract".

Deise Vu

Deleted User wrote: »

I draft contracts all the time.

You on the other hand sneer about the relevance of law in the interpretation of contracts.

Thanks for the offer of an interesting debate on force majeure, but I'll decline to play with someone who said that literally all there was to say about contract law is "if one side cannot carry out their side of the contract, there is no contract".

And for the second time Force Majeure is avoided. Interesting, but I think I will decline receiving legal advice from someone who wrings his hands in despair when told one party can't carry out their side of the contract.

Realt Dearg Sec

He wasn't offering legal advice, he was just saying the situation is more complicated than you are claiming which is probably why the oci are uncertain about whether they can get it if the contract. If it was as cut and dry as you are saying, they wouldn't be in any kind of problem.

4ensic15

Deise Vu wrote: »

. We are not talking about someone losing their licence for a few weeks (how can you lose a licence for a few weeks?).

!. Person lets their licence lapse and doesn't renew for a few weeks. OR
2. A summons is issued against a person. Case goes ahead in the District Court even though the person never got the summons. They are convicted and banned in their absence. When they find outabout the conviction they apply for a set aside and succeed.

Wildlife Actor

Leaving aside hickey's authority, if thg cannot perform the contract at all, then in the absence of a very unusual (read "suspicious") clause, OCI will be able to terminate.

I referred to it as an implied term previously and in answer to the poster who asked why, if it's so obvious, they didn't put it in the contract, I would say that is the precise test for an implied term: it's so obvious that it goes without saying.

But even if you forget about the implied term characterisation, it can be viewed as a question of performance. If Party X does not and cannot perform his central obligation of the contract, he commits a repudiatory breach of contract entitling Party Y to terminate.

The only thing that could save the contract is a ludicrous term stating that, instead of the normal rules that allow for termination on the commission of a repudiatory breach, the guilty party can hold the innocent party to the contract.

It's not that complicated really and there's no legal hocus pics one way or another. If OCI were responsible for thg losing its accreditation, then things might be different, but as I said earlier, it's difficult to see a judge bring sympathetic to thg.

Love nor Money

Love nor Money wrote: »

Leaving aside hickey's authority, if thg cannot perform the contract at all, then in the absence of a very unusual (read "suspicious") clause, OCI will be able to terminate.

There is no suggestion that they cannot perform the contract "at all".

Sarah Keane was a partner at Mathesons. She has a masters in commercial law. She has described the agreement as "watertight".

http://campus.ie/surviving-college/ex-presidents-secret-contracts-ticket-tout-firm

She may be wrong. But all the noises are that it's binding. And she should have an idea of commercial law and contracts.

Muahahaha

Also from the above link

The contracts included a clause which stated that even if THG were rejected at a previous Olympics this would not impact on future dealings with the OCI.

Sounds to me like Hickey just let THG put whatever they wanted into the contract and that they duly did. Hickey just wanted to keep the money flowing and it now will be, albeit under a huge cloud for the next 10 or so years

Wildlife Actor

@Conor74

So Sarah Keane was a partner in Mathsons and has a masters in commercial law therefore she cannot be wrong. is that as far as you can put it?

@Muahahaha

So you're saying that there IS a clause saying that OCI are bound in to dealing with thg even if they have no accreditation? This is the suspicious only possibility that I spoke about. Do you know it's there? Do you accept that such a clause would be suspicious?

ohnonotgmail

Love nor Money wrote: »

@Conor74

So Sarah Keane was a partner in Mathsons and has a masters in commercial law therefore she cannot be wrong. is that as far as you can put it?

@Muahahaha

So you're saying that there IS a clause saying that OCI are bound in to dealing with thg even if they have no accreditation? This is the suspicious only possibility that I spoke about. Do you know it's there? Do you accept that such a clause would be suspicious?

well no, his point is that she has actually seen the contract so she has a distinct advantage over all of us here in regards to what it actually says.

Joe_ Public

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well no, his point is that she has actually seen the contract so she has a distinct advantage over all of us here in regards to what it actually says.

Reading this thread, you'd nearly swear it's some of the contributors who have read the contract while Sarah Keane and the OCI are fumbling around in the dark. Perhaps they should think about ditching their team of lawyers and saving some money by availing of the free legal advice on here.

osarusan

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Perhaps they should think about ditching their team of lawyers and saving some money by availing of the free legal advice on here.

We have to finish up with fixing the HSE, unemployment, and the North Korean problem first though.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well no, his point is that she has actually seen the contract so she has a distinct advantage over all of us here in regards to what it actually says.

Yep, that pretty much it. An informed opinion by someone who knows the area and has read the document.

Water John

I thought oddly, that M/s Keane had not actually seen the contract.
Well at least she doesn't possess a signed copy.

She said the Council “didn’t even have a signed agreement in the office.” IT.

In fairness, they are not taking it lying down. Taking charge of ticketing themselves for 2018 Winter Olympics puts it up to THG to legally challenge.

I think most accept, it is diff to get out of commercial contracts. Once genuine effort is made to do so, I wouldn't hold it against the present OCI.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

I think most accept, it is diff to get out of commercial contracts. Once genuine effort is made to do so, I wouldn't hold it against the present OCI.

I think it also avoids the one big question in all of this. Not THG or contracts or licensing or anything like that...but what was the exact sequence of events that led to the OCI entering an agreement that could possibly be considered binding despite the suspension of THG from at least one significant event. It's not another twist in a scandal, it's a scandal in itself. Even if everything else was squeaky clean, this should of itself have provoked an outrage.

flutered

could not ross rush something thro the dail, like was done with the world rugby cup thingy, which could solve this conundrum

Water John

Change in Irish Law cannot be retrospective. We have a written constitution.

ArmaniJeanss

Water John wrote: »

Change in Irish Law cannot be retrospective. We have a written constitution.

This is a common misconception.
Retrospective legislation is generally fine and happens a lot of the time - retrospective criminal legislation is a no-no. Key difference.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Water John

If you're asking for some law to nullify a commercial contract in place, it would run foul of property rights.

STB.

The contracts included a clause which stated that even if THG were rejected at a previous Olympics this would not impact on future dealings with the OCI.

Rejected by whom ?

The OCI or the Local Accreditation Committee.

THG werent accredited for Rio.

They have been refused authorisation for Winter Games in South Korea.

The OCI will have to make alternative arrangements.

They had written to THG after it all kicked off in Rio, putting them on notice that if any wrongdoing was found in the investigation of THG and PRO10 in the context of the Rio Olympics that the OCI would notify the Pyeongchang organising committee of same and THG could risk losing the contract.

Water John

Trial date set for the 29th Nov.

http://www.thejournal.ie/pat-hickey-trial-3583002-Sep2017/

Seth Brundle

Water John wrote: »

Trial date set for the 29th Nov.

http://www.thejournal.ie/pat-hickey-trial-3583002-Sep2017/

Cue the heart problems returning!

Littlehorny

kbannon wrote: »

Cue the heart problems returning!

Surely he have trouble proving medically that he has one

Greybottle

kbannon wrote: »

Cue the heart problems returning!

He's up and down with that heart problem god bless him. Is so seriously ill that he needs to come back to Ireland from house arrest in Rio.

Then he recovers enough to moot putting his name forward for the job of president of the OCI again. A job that entails a huge amount of travel to hot, foreign lands.

Then he's so bad again that he can't make it to his trial in Rio.

Then he'll be healthy enough to spend ages in courts trying to sue the bollix off anybody who may have criticised him.

All the time going for his daily jog in the Phoenix Park.

A martyr to the ould heart is our Pat, we should build a statue to him.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Greybottle

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I reckon the dog is going to get that for breakfast the morning he's supposed to go to Rio.

Judge: "Where's that Hickey fella"
Lawyer: "Dog ate his passport Sir"
Judge: "Ah, for the love a fcukin Jayzus and Maria, not again"

Water John

See on CNN raids by police in Brazil into corruption in allocating the Olympics to Rio.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-olympics-rio-corruption/brazil-olympic-chief-brokered-2-million-bribe-to-buy-rio-games-police-idUKKCN1BG1NN

Seth Brundle

Apparently Pat is "looking forward" to the trial in Brazil...
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/pat-hickey-looking-forward-to-his-trial-in-brazil-insists-he-will-be-cleared-36105082.html

Greybottle

Pat Hickey "looking forward to the trial"
Pat Hickey "believes his name will be cleared"
Pat Hickey doesn't have the belief in himself to show up in court in Brazil to defend himself.

If found guilty Terry Prone will have the 'ould "He's innocent and we can't trust them foreigners and their" justice" systems at all " press release ready, which will be happily dispersed and repeated ad nauseum by his friends in the media and connected circles.

ahlookit

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Luckily he has a second one....

Muahahaha

ahlookit wrote: »

Luckily he has a second one....

Is it Swiss? A lot of those IOC, FIFA, UEFA types have Swiss passports as well as their own nations one. Probably means less questions for them when they need to hide money

josip

Brasilian police have found $16m dollars in an apartment in Brasil.



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-41174071

A connection with Pat has yet to be established but one suspects that it's only a matter of time.

Water John

Ah, that's funny, the proverbial, boxes and suitcases stuffed with cash.

flutered

is not hickys lawyers advocating trial via video link for some time, will be be scanning which countrys which has extradition deals with brazil before going on his jollies from now on, could we do a deal with the brazilians, we get lyng they get hicky

Seth Brundle

Good riddance...

Indo wrote:

Former Olympic chief Pat Hickey has formally resigned from the International Olympic Committee’s executive board.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/pat-hickey-resigns-from-olympic-committee-board-36117375.html

josip

Can we change the title of the thread please to "Former Olympic..." ?

Muahahaha

When his trial date comes up in November I wonder where he will be? His house address in Castleknock is on the public record so I doubt he will be seen anywhere around there or else it will be a media scrum at the end of his driveway. I think Pat will be playing a game of hide and seek come November.

Greybottle

kbannon wrote: »

Good riddance...



http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/pat-hickey-resigns-from-olympic-committee-board-36117375.html

Hmmmm.... Well firstly he took his time, then he says that he hopes to return to the job after the trial, which makes me think that he's not fully gone yet.

Along with that the next IOC meeting is in Peru of all places and that could be a bit of a squeaky bum trip for Mr Hickey.

CeilingFly

Seems all the GAA clubs are at a similar lark - but its called "fundraising" by the media here and the GAA.

Buy an over-priced breakfast, (€2,500 for 10 breakfasts) or buy an overpriced round of golf and you "earn" the right to buy one match ticket at face value.

Almost identical to what THG & Hickey were doing. - Buy a $5,000 hotel & meal package and you are entitled to buy an olympic ticket at face value.

I can't see gardai arresting GAA organisers.

Deise Vu

CeilingFly wrote: »

Seems all the GAA clubs are at a similar lark - but its called "fundraising" by the media here and the GAA.

Buy an over-priced breakfast, (€2,500 for 10 breakfasts) or buy an overpriced round of golf and you "earn" the right to buy one match ticket at face value.

Almost identical to what THG & Hickey were doing. - Buy a $5,000 hotel & meal package and you are entitled to buy an olympic ticket at face value.

I can't see gardai arresting GAA organisers.

All this money goes into the respective county teams training funds (not the 'clubs' as you have put in your post). It is a very small percentage of the tickets issued and it is out of the County Board allocations not from players or club's. THG's income went into Marcus Evan's pockets and Pat seems to have sold all the IOC's allocation including family tickets.

CeilingFly

Deise Vu wrote: »

All this money goes into the respective county teams training funds (not the 'clubs' as you have put in your post). It is a very small percentage of the tickets issued and it is out of the County Board allocations not from players or club's. THG's income went into Marcus Evan's pockets and Pat seems to have sold all the IOC's allocation including family tickets.

Pat Hickey didn't gain monetarily from it but the indo had no issue in hanging him.

To me it makes no difference where the money goes - its a back door way of charging extortionate prices for tickets and afforable only to those with that level of spare cash.

Same with the olympic tickets - only if you could afford the "package" could you buy a face value ticket.

ohnonotgmail

CeilingFly wrote: »

Pat Hickey didn't gain monetarily from it but the indo had no issue in hanging him.

To me it makes no difference where the money goes - its a back door way of charging extortionate prices for tickets and afforable only to those with that level of spare cash.

Same with the olympic tickets - only if you could afford the "package" could you buy a face value ticket.

who did?

Water John

We don't know who benefited. But, a private concern, was able to use an allocation for a purpose, for what it was not intended, to make private profits.
Its totally different as the poster above says. But then you're reaching for any straw to defend the indefensible.
No, I don't buy or read the indo.

Deise Vu

CeilingFly wrote: »

Pat Hickey didn't gain monetarily from it but the indo had no issue in hanging him.

To me it makes no difference where the money goes - its a back door way of charging extortionate prices for tickets and afforable only to those with that level of spare cash.

Same with the olympic tickets - only if you could afford the "package" could you buy a face value ticket.

Seeing as neither Pat nor THG co-operated with any enquiries so far I will wait and see the outcome of the trial before I decide who gained and who didn't gain.

I note you are unable to differentiate between money from a couple of hundred tickets out of 82,000 going to fund the participating teams training expenses and the money from all the Irish Olympic Council tickets going to Marcus Evans but I think you will find most right-thinking people would not agree with you.

ArmaniJeanss

CeilingFly wrote: »

Seems all the GAA clubs are at a similar lark - but its called "fundraising" by the media here and the GAA.

Buy an over-priced breakfast, (€2,500 for 10 breakfasts) or buy an overpriced round of golf and you "earn" the right to buy one match ticket at face value.

Almost identical to what THG & Hickey were doing. - Buy a $5,000 hotel & meal package and you are entitled to buy an olympic ticket at face value.

I can't see gardai arresting GAA organisers.

Could it possibly be that Brazilian law differs from Irish law in this area?

CeilingFly

Water John wrote: »

We don't know who benefited. But, a private concern, was able to use an allocation for a purpose, for what it was not intended, to make private profits.
Its totally different as the poster above says. But then you're reaching for any straw to defend the indefensible.
No, I don't buy or read the indo.

I'm certainly not defending Hickey or Thg - they toited by the back door.

Gaa clubs are doing the same - doesn't matter where the money is going, its effectively giving official sanction to touting.

josip

CeilingFly wrote: »

I'm certainly not defending Hickey or Thg - they toited by the back door.

Gaa clubs are doing the same - doesn't matter where the money is going, its effectively giving official sanction to touting.

For the past 20 years, I and my brother have been members of our local GAA club.
For every all Ireland Final in that time that our country has been involved in, they have had a lottery for tickets for the members.
Thankfully they almost always have enough tickets for all of the members who want to go.
All of us pay face value for the tickets.

Was the same available from the OCI for the Rio Olympics?

CeilingFly

josip wrote: »

For the past 20 years, I and my brother have been members of our local GAA club.
For every all Ireland Final in that time that our country has been involved in, they have had a lottery for tickets for the members.
Thankfully they almost always have enough tickets for all of the members who want to go.
All of us pay face value for the tickets.

Was the same available from the IOC for the Rio Olympics?

If its a straight forward lottery and you pay face value, there's no issue whatsoever and that's a very fair way of doing it.

Similarly a rugby club I'm involved in puts all interested names into a drum (for 6 nations) and pick them out and you get 24 hours to buy the ticket. No buying a €250 breakfast or a €500 round of golf involved.

But if they forced you to pay €2500 to buy 10 sandwiches that are worth a fiver each and give you a right to buy a ticket for each sandwich you buy, then that's touting by the back door.

"But shure its the GAA and that's different" seems to be the response - In my mind its the same. Forcing you to overpay for one item for a right to pay for the other.

josip

CeilingFly wrote: »

If its a straight forward lottery and you pay face value, there's no issue whatsoever and that's a very fair way of doing it.

Similarly a rugby club I'm involved in puts all interested names into a drum (for 6 nations) and pick them out and you get 24 hours to buy the ticket. No buying a €250 breakfast or a €500 round of golf involved.

But if they forced you to pay €2500 to buy 10 sandwiches that are worth a fiver each and give you a right to buy a ticket for each sandwich you buy, then that's touting by the back door.

"But shure its the GAA and that's different" seems to be the response - In my mind its the same. Forcing you to overpay for one item for a right to pay for the other.

Was the same (buy event tickets at face value) available from the OCI for the Rio Olympics?