Eels Blogs

Nathan Peats And Compensation

Posted by Robert Lloyd on August 18, 2016 at 7:56am

Now that Brad Arthur has made a public admission that it was a mistake in forcing out Nathan Peats from the Eels, compensation should be considered for Nathan Peats.

It must have been quiet a cost to Peats in transferring from Sydney to the Gold Coast. He had just bought or built a home somewhere near Parramatta and then, against his wishers, transferred to the Gold Coast.

That cost will be quiet minimal compared to the cost of returning to Sydney if that be his intention. The cost of homes is horrendous--a million dollars or more.

I hope Nathan Peats takes this up with his legal representative with a view of selecting the best option or options open to him.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

★

Votes: 0

Email me when people reply –

Replies

Enforcer Eel August 18, 2016 at 8:12am

Another Lloyd top shelf blog. Your a credit to the site
Sir Col "THE NODDY MUSHROOM" August 18, 2016 at 8:12am
Yeh Nah August 18, 2016 at 8:13am

What is this rubbish? Peats was under contract. He was offered opportunity to leave, he took it. He could have dug heels in and stayed, another player would have jumped ship. Compensation? Your having a laugh
Rise of an empire August 18, 2016 at 8:25am

Robert let it go
Mitchy August 18, 2016 at 8:31am

This has to be a joke of a blog. J McEnroe would say "Surely you can't be serious......??"
- fishbulb > Mitchy August 18, 2016 at 11:51am
  
  I am serious, and don't call me shirley.
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐 August 18, 2016 at 8:31am

Robert, we deserve compensation for putting up with your two bit dope dribble.
- Enforcer Eel > Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin 🐐 August 18, 2016 at 8:38am
  
  HAHA
Muttman August 18, 2016 at 8:32am

How is that law degree working out for you?
Prof. Daz August 18, 2016 at 8:44am

Nice theory, I guess. But if we're going to embrace the absurd, why not go all out? Peats owes BA compensation. As everyone should know, it is cheaper to finance an economc venture via debt than equity, as long as you have sufficient control over the repayment duration and can offset your risk. So Peats, as you claim, had just bought or built a house near Parramatta. So Peats now shifts to the Gold Coast, with lower property values, and assumes some debt for a second residential home using the low risk equity of his Parramatta house as collateral. So BA has turned Peats into a landlord, and property investment is lucrative if done right, while BA gets the raw end of the deal by being stuck without his first choice hooker. Peats owes BA.