Greshs Eye
Debutant
- Feb 6, 2021
- 145
- 516
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Here are my thoughts re JDG and the Pies. I think it is an error to put behavioral clauses into his contract. It paints the club into a corner. IMO, in doing so, they create a trap for themselves whereby they are required to respond to any indiscretion - regardless of of gravity. If the contract is silent on such triggers, the club can respond in any way they feel is appropriate, but if they are contractually obligated to respond, it potentially creates a media circus. TBH I think the JDG camp are using us to get the best out of the Pies, but if we land him without such behavioural terms, its a really easy win. He screws up? OK, Saints say, 'our policy is X with regard to these matters and we respond according to Y'. On the other hand, if its a contractual term, its a question of cvontract breach - hands are tied, the media will get a scent of what how its drafted in the contract, and the interpretation and conjecture begins - 'did he breach contract? Should he be instantly sacked"? etc etc. If he screws up but is dominating, then its another problem for a club too. 'How do we keep him playing without it looking like we are ignoring the very standards we imposed on him' etc. IMO, better play is to keep these sorts of standards quiet, then when he screws up, publicly announce, 'our policy with respect to these transgressions are as follows' ... without a paper trail.
TL DR : Ironically, not including behavioural terms gives the club MORE flexibility to manage a JDG induced crisis, instead of less. (and yes, I am a contract lawyer, not sports tho).
TL DR : Ironically, not including behavioural terms gives the club MORE flexibility to manage a JDG induced crisis, instead of less. (and yes, I am a contract lawyer, not sports tho).