View Full Version : Webster thinking of suing Freo
funky_monk
9 Jul 2004, 18:37
What do people think about this...
http://thegame.thewest.com.au/20040709/afl/news/tg-afl-new-sto127799.html
I'd be less than happy if I was Webster. Freo may not have a legal obligation to look after Webster but what about morally? I think they do.
Is $25,000 worth screwing over one of your own players?
Kenny_01
9 Jul 2004, 19:00
No-one is trying to screw him over. I am sure we would have handed over the 25k if we were allowed to.
"You have to make payments within the rules.
"It is unfortunately something the club has no option over."
But Schwab said the AFL had ruled that Webster was not entitled to an injury payment.
And it sounds like they are going to the AFL to see if they will reconsider.
funky_monk
9 Jul 2004, 19:42
On 6PR they were talking about how Freo doesn't want their players playing in the WAFL outside of the AFL season (i.e. WAFL finals footy). My understanding was because of the liability such as what Webster is claiming.
True that it was those geniuses of journalism Barra and Brad Hardie but they spoke to Adrian Anderson(?) (operations manager of the AFL) and the issue seemed that Freo didn't want the extra $25,000 on their salary cap.
Issues over payments during a knee recon is why Joel Smith left St Kilda. Not saying Webster would leave but can't they just pay the $25,000? Sounds like Freo will if the AFL states they have to but not otherwise. If Freo wanted to make a payment to any player they could as long as they declared it in the TPP. So why not just resolve it?
ImperialPurple
9 Jul 2004, 20:00
There's been quite a lengthy (and I reckon pretty interesting) discussion on DL. Have a squizz:
http://www.dockerland.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=8294&forum=Docker_Discussions
error404
9 Jul 2004, 20:13
We are so close to the Salary cap max, to pay Webster $25,000
Salary cap breach!
"If the payment issue is not settled, Webster will also consider suing for damages and lost income over his claim that the Dockers had confirmed they intended to offer him a two-year deal for 2004 and 2005 but instead gave him only a one-year deal after he was injured."
Circumstances change. We're talking about a chap that has had three knee reconstructions. I'd say not offering him more than a one year contract is pretty bloody common sense. If he remains uninjured and proves his worth, he'll be offered an extension. Whats the problem?
That is the flimsiest legal arguement I have heard. Wouldn't be suprised if the west pulled that out of their arse.
error404
9 Jul 2004, 21:04
T lo is on performance bass contract. eg: $80k plus $5k per game. If T Lo was to play every game this year, it would be an extra $100k on the salary cap that Swabbie had not budgeted for. Salary cap breach!
It happened in the 2001 season and if it happened this year, our CEO would be staring down the barrel. This is IMO why we have “the purple circle, the untouchables” Those who can’t be dropped under any circumstances. Players on fixed contracts. Next year we should be OK but this year we have no room for error.
http://www.wehavethepassion.com/forums/viewthread.php?tid=199
If there wasn't salary cap problems, Webster would already have his $25,000
funky_monk
9 Jul 2004, 21:15
Originally posted by error404
T lo is on performance bass contract. eg: $80k plus $5k per game. If T Lo was to play every game this year, it would be an extra $100k on the salary cap that Swabbie had not budgeted for. Salary cap breach!
It happened in the 2001 season and if it happened this year, our CEO would be staring down the barrel. This is IMO why we have “the purple circle, the untouchables” Those who can’t be dropped under any circumstances. Players on fixed contracts. Next year we should be OK but this year we have no room for error.
http://www.wehavethepassion.com/forums/viewthread.php?tid=199
Unbelievable! So this is why T Lo gets the raw deal all the time.
Kenny_01
9 Jul 2004, 21:51
Originally posted by funky_monk
Unbelievable! So this is why T Lo gets the raw deal all the time.
TLo had his chances this year and did bugger all other than in first game.
funky_monk
9 Jul 2004, 23:06
Originally posted by Kenny_01
TLo had his chances this year and did bugger all other than in first game.
So you honestly believe that T Lo has been given a fair run and given a comparison to the chances other players have got that he hasn't been hard done by? 6 goals in a half before a terential downpour is pretty good. T Lo would kick 40-odd goals a year if he got a run each week with regular game time. Thats Jeff Farmer-esque (No I don't think Jeff should be dropped).
Connolly has spoken in press conferences about the amount certain people are paid and how this relates to them getting a game. It never made sense why. This is the only theory for this kind of selection process that has actually come forward to support why this may be the case (i.e. salary cap restraints). It also may explain the tight-assed attitude Freo may be having to the Webster issue.
But I basically think Connolly has done a top job and really T Lo wouldn't solve any of the deficiencies we have. It is still a worry if we are so close to the salary cap limit that we can't play certain players.
Correct me if I'm wrong but why does Webster deserve injury compensation from the Fremantle Football Club when he injuried his knee for the third time playing for East Perth Football Club in the WAFL???
They owe him nothing.
error404
9 Jul 2004, 23:42
This is not an about whether Webster deserves compensation or not, it all boils down to the salary cap. Swabbie would gladly pay if was not for the salary cap. Swabbie has probably told Webster to threaten legal action so the AFL will rule it's not part of the salary cap.
If we had a bad run with injuries like in the 2001 season, we would be in the poo. Team selection is dictated partly by the salary cap. A problem, hopefully we don't have next year.
Freo Hitman
10 Jul 2004, 01:52
Originally posted by funky_monk
Unbelievable! So this is why T Lo gets the raw deal all the time.
Funky monk that comment is as poor as TLo's games this year
$25.000 'donation', simple......
under the table dealing, keep the afl off guard, in fact ill bet he's already been paid and this is a diversion.
how much would his contract be worth per year?
ImperialPurple
10 Jul 2004, 16:57
Originally posted by avdbrm
how much would his contract be worth per year?
first year off the rookie list... maybe $60K-ish at a guess.
funky_monk
11 Jul 2004, 13:03
Originally posted by dasler
Correct me if I'm wrong but why does Webster deserve injury compensation from the Fremantle Football Club when he injuried his knee for the third time playing for East Perth Football Club in the WAFL???
They owe him nothing.
Sure I'll help you out. The real issue is whether Webster was "required' to play in the game for East Perth. During the season if a player isn't in the league 22 then they are required to play for their WAFL club. If they hurt themselves (even at WAFL level) they are doing it as employees of the Fremantle Football club so are covered by a certain amount of injury payments.
Webster states that even though Freo's AFL season was over officials encouraged him to play for East Perth to maintain fitness for the Collingwood London game.
Does this mean Webster was required to play the game? If the answer is yes then Freo owes him the money... simple as that. If its a no then technically we don't. Thats the muddy area.
But if your club (i.e. your employers) suggested you do something employment related and you have a contract which protects you against injury at work wouldn't you expect to be covered?