★★★★★ 0/5

TEN “Not prepared to be bullied” over John Stephens case

TEN insists its negotiations with John Stephens were "extensive" and it is "not prepared to be bullied" by Seven.

12
Leave a comment

networkten_2The mud surrounding TEN’s poaching of John Stephens and his apparent change of heart to stay with Seven is getting deeper.

Today TEN has issued another statement on the matter following a report that the veteran programmer blamed his initial switch on the use of painkillers.

The Australian reported Stephens was recovering from a hip operation and wrote to CEO Hamish McLennan on March 10 saying: “Now that I have stopped the painkillers and other drugs and with a clear mind, feel that I can no longer accept the appointment … and will not be commencing employment with Ten.”

Today TEN claims its negotiations with Stephens were ‘extensive’ and points towards contract interference by Seven.

The executive stoush is already making news in trade media overseas.

TEN statement:

There has been a lot of noise and misinformation around recent events involving Network Ten and John Stephens.

Network Ten had extensive negotiations with Mr Stephens in relation to his contract with the company.

Network Ten wants to get the truth of what happened after that contract was signed by Mr Stephens. The leaking of confidential documents to the media only strengthens our resolve.

We believe Seven Network, Bruce McWilliam, Tim Worner and others have a case to answer. On March 17, Justice Brereton in the Supreme Court of NSW stated there is a seriously arguable case that Seven Network has engaged in conduct that constitutes an interference with Network Ten’s agreement with Mr Stephens.

In light of recent events, and this case, Network Ten is not prepared to be bullied. Network Ten believes Seven Network has induced breach of, and interfered with, its contract with Mr Stephens.

12 Responses

  1. Doesn’t Stokes own shares in TEN? My advice would be for him to let Stephens go so he can get a return on his investment in TEN.
    TEN need help! 7 give e’m a break!

  2. Stephens letter to Ten sounds like an attempt to have the contract declared invalid on the grounds that he did not have the capacity to enter into it due to being in hospital after an operation and taking lots of painkillers and drugs.

    Ten lost their attempt to have the contract enforced and were forced to pay costs. Ten in arguing that the contract was negotiated over a long period are claiming that the contract was valid and should have been enforced.

    Now Ten are trying to get Seven penalised for inducing Stephens to back out of the contract. This is revenge for Seven enforcing the non-compete clause in Warburton’s contract and delaying his start at Ten.

    One would think Ten have more important things to worry about.

  4. Channel 10 are not chasing after John Stephens any more. They’re chasing after channel 7’s misconduct and interference in the contract between Mr Stephens and channel 10.

    If it is true which according to the Supreme Court of NSW it is likely it is. Then I give full props to 10 to challenge this and not be bullied by 7. If 7 want to play dirty then they are acceptable to the punishment put on them by the Courts and charged for the damages they incurred on Channel 10.

  8. I can’t believe 10 would chase someone who seemingly doesn’t want to work for them – what weird universe are they living in?

    In what other field would you want someone who doesn’t want to be in your organisation working for you??

  10. Ten need to accept they got played and move on, they’re digging themselves a deeper hole. It’s business, not masterchef, If they can’t handle their competitors dirty play they should get out of the mud.

    Judging from tens earlier realease, they are still expect him to show up when his contract starts, meaning 7 are have the rare opportunity to have one of their own staff running the schedule of one of their competitors. What a mess.

Leave a Reply