Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.<\/p>\n
Des Hasler maintains Manly didn\u2019t consult him about the club\u2019s \u201crainbow jersey\u201d and that he was sacked just a week after agreeing to club-imposed conditions that extended his tenure, according to court documents.<\/p>\n
A year after his controversial sacking, Hasler is taking the Sea Eagles to court for a claim of unfair dismissal, with a directions hearing scheduled for the Supreme Court on October 20. Hasler, who will coach the Gold Coast Titans next year, is seeking a seven-figure payout after mediation talks with the club failed.<\/p>\n
At the centre of the dispute is the \u201cEveryone in League\u201d jersey episode, which saw seven Manly players refuse to wear a rainbow-themed jersey, designed to celebrate diversity and inclusivity, on religious grounds.<\/p>\n
The seven first-team players, who also said they had not been consulted before the jersey was unveiled, boycotted the club\u2019s round-20 match against the Roosters. An under-strength Sea Eagles side lost that match and didn\u2019t win again all year, finishing the season in 11th spot after six straight losses.<\/p>\n
A News Corp report on the weekend claimed that Hasler insisted the players wear the controversial jersey. However, a statement of claim filed on Hasler\u2019s behalf \u2013 obtained by this masthead \u2013 alleged the club pushed the uniform.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe adoption for the design of that playing jersey was undertaken by the Club and required to be worn by all participating players, such decision being made without prior consultation either with the Club players or the First Plaintiff [Hasler],\u201d the document claims.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Des Hasler is taking Manly to court.<\/span>Credit: <\/span>SMH<\/cite><\/p>\n \u201cThe impact on Club morale and playing performance in consequence of the withdrawal of the seven players and its impact upon the strength and morale in successive playing rounds of the NRL first grade competition led to the failure of the Club to qualify among the top eight clubs participating in the first grade NRL competition and a failure to achieve a place in the final series of the first grade NRL competition for the 2022 playing season.<\/p>\n \u201cThe failure of the Club\u2019s first grade team to attain a position in the finals of the NRL first grade competition directly affected [Hasler\u2019s] entitlement to an enforceable extension as of right of the term of the Coaching Contract in the role of head coach of the Club and a corresponding extension of the Ambassador Contract \u2026<\/p>\n \u201cIt was an implied term and condition under the Coaching Contract that the Defendant would not take any step in the administration of the affairs of the Club so as not to prejudice the playing performance of the Club\u2019s first grade team in the NRL Premiership Competition during the currency of the Coaching Contract.\u201d<\/p>\n Under the terms of Hasler\u2019s contract, he would have activated an automatic one-year extension had the Sea Eagles made the top eight that season.<\/p>\n Manly\u2019s controversial \u2018Everyone in League\u2019 jersey.<\/span>Credit: <\/span>Getty<\/cite><\/p>\n Manly sought to put tighter controls on Hasler following the completion of the season. Sources speaking on the condition of anonymity, due to the matter being before the courts, told this masthead that the club didn\u2019t expect the coach to accept them.<\/p>\n However, it is claimed in the document that he did so \u201cto his detriment\u201d, thereby entering into an agreement for the 2023 season.<\/p>\n \u201cOn or about 6 October the board of directors of the Defendant determined that upon the acceptance by the First Plaintiff of certain specified changes in the administration and management of the club, the term of the coaching contract would be extended to include the 2023 playing season\u201d the document stated.<\/p>\n \u201cThat determination was notified to the First Plaintiff by email on October 6 2022 \u2026<\/p>\n \u201cBy letter dated 13 October 2022, the Defendant gave the First Plaintiff written Notice purporting to terminate the Coaching Contract and derivatively the Ambassador Contract.\u201d<\/p>\n The Sea Eagles said the club would vigorously defend its position.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re not backing down, we\u2019re defending the matter in court,\u201d the spokesperson said.<\/p>\n Manly were contacted for comment in relation to the allegations in Hasler\u2019s statement of claim.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, former Sea Eagles hooker Manase Fainu has lost an appeal over his sentence for stabbing a man at a Mormon church dance.<\/p>\n Fainu was sentenced to eight years in prison with a non-parole period of four years and three months following the incident in Sydney\u2019s south-west in October 2019. On Friday, his appeal in the Supreme Court was dismissed.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n