Goddard labels other clubs 'unethical'

[Blue and Silver]

If he is suggesting that if players wanted to leave for other reasons but used the ASADA saga as an excuse. Yes, that's breaking the contract in bad faith by exploiting a non-contributing factor as a reasoning to leave.

And if the other clubs are exploiting said reasoning, without the players actually holding it. Yes.

BUT if some of his teammates have legitimate reservations about the saga, and legitimately are uncomfortable with what happened, then no.

 

[Tiger2709]

What's done is done can't change what happened im sure in hindsight the club wouldn't put it's self in this situation.

Now that I agree with.

All the rest of us want though is for EFC to front up, face the charges and get on with playing football, this side show has been the main event for far to long.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

If he is suggesting that if players wanted to leave for other reasons but used the ASADA saga as an excuse. Yes, that's breaking the contract in bad faith by exploiting a non-contributing factor as a reasoning to leave.

And if the other clubs are exploiting said reasoning, without the players actually holding it. Yes.

BUT if some of his teammates have legitimate reservations about the saga, and legitimately are uncomfortable with what happened, then no.

And that's the problem apart from Ryder the rest of the playing group seem happy at EFC and have no intentions of leaving.

 

[Blue and Silver]

And that's the problem apart from Ryder the rest of the playing group seem happy at EFC.

Can you really know how another person feels?

No offense, but a persons private reservations may not be apparent through their behavior. Goddard is invested in players staying, he is less likely then most to notice a desire to leave.

And anyway, clubs are probing to see where players are at, happens every season. As I said above, it is only unethical if it is used as a smokescreen for ulterior motivations

 

[The_Reaper]

It is unethical.

I can understand a player mabey wanting out but to actually have rival clubs dangle lots of $$$ and telling that player to use the drug get out clause is disrespectful especially if that player is happy and want's to go no where.

How is it unethical?
Nobody fines BHP trying to poach someone from Rio Tinto unethical.

 

[Blueyboy74]

How is it unethical?
Nobody fines BHP trying to poach someone from Rio Tinto unethical.

Apples and oranges. In that example Rio could simply enforce the contract. The issue here is the use of the breach clause.

 

[DonsRule]

I gather you meant staying, and they will be risking a hissy fit from BJ more likely.

Indeed I did.

THe Wrath of BJ. Floors an opponent with an open palm

 

[DonsRule]

And just for you, Percel

 

[BlueWorld]

It is unethical.

I can understand a player mabey wanting out but to actually have rival clubs dangle lots of $$$ and telling that player to use the drug get out clause is disrespectful especially if that player is happy and want's to go no where.

Maybe if they were a bit more ethical about their use of drugs they wouldn't be in this position.

 

[The_Reaper]

Apples and oranges. In that example Rio could simply enforce the contract. The issue here is the use of the breach clause.

A breach clause is part of the a contact which the players are entitled to use. I see no more issue with that than clubs chasing players who are about to become free agents

 

[DERIBERATE]

Dumping players who are about to score an 18 month ban on another club's head does seem pretty unethical, by Essendon.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Goddard is just taking the piss isn't he?

 

[Blueyboy74]

A breach clause is part of the a contact which the players are entitled to use. I see no more issue with that than clubs chasing players who are about to become free agents

You're missing the point. The issue is enacting breach clause when you actually want to leave for other reasons (say like you missus is from Qld ..)

I suspect Ryder isn't that aggrieved with the Bombers ... after all he apparently will only leave if they get compensated. If that's the case then BJ may want to bring his ethics into question instead.

 

[The_Reaper]

You're missing the point. The issue is enacting breach clause when you actually want to leave for other reasons (say like you missus is from Qld ..)

I suspect Ryder isn't that aggrieved with the Bombers ... after all he apparently will only leave if they get compensated. If that's the case then BJ may want to bring his ethics into question instead.

I see what you are saying but I don't view it as an ethical issue.

Ryder is entitled to use this clause in his contract

 

[BigJoeD_]

I see what you are saying but I don't view it as an ethical issue.

Ryder is entitled to use this clause in his contract

If he feels genuinely aggrieved, absolutely.
But to use the clause as a bargaining chip?

Ryder has 2 years to run on a four year contract, and coming off by far his most productive season...

 

[The_Reaper]

If he feels genuinely aggrieved, absolutely.
But to use the clause as a bargaining chip?

Ryder has 2 years to run on a four year contract, and coming off by far his most productive season...

Why not?

He's entitled to use a clause on his contract if he thinks it's best for him or his family.

 

[ziad]

there are lost of unethical things in footy, players leaving clubs that nurtured them for money, cheating by using PED, COLA, etc, way down the list by my ethical compass would be clubs recruiting players who leave another club for fundamental breach of contract

 

[warped79]

Is this 'get out of contract' clause available for any player from any club to exploit? If EFC are guilty players will be issued infractions and they can't play for any club. The clubs dangling the bait hoping to poach some of the EFC players must be pretty confident there will be no infractions other wise they wouldn't be making offers.

If EFC are not guilty, no players will be issued infractions. In this instance players couldn't use the break contract clause as their argument has just been proved wrong? Unless they are using the 'grey area' around supplements as their grievance - in which case players from any club could use the same get of contract card and move anywhere that might offer them more money.

Well done Goddard - about time someone said it.

 

[The_Reaper]

Is this 'get out of contract' clause available for any player from any club to exploit? If EFC are guilty players will be issued infractions and they can't play for any club. The clubs dangling the bait hoping to poach some of the EFC players must be pretty confident there will be no infractions other wise they wouldn't be making offers.

If EFC are not guilty, no players will be issued infractions. In this instance players couldn't use the break contract clause as their argument has just been proved wrong? Unless they are using the 'grey area' around supplements as their grievance - in which case players from any club could use the same get of contract card and move anywhere that might offer them more money.

Well done Goddard - about time someone said it.

It's inbuilt in recent Essendon contracts.

 

[BigJoeD_]

Why not?

He's entitled to use a clause on his contract if he thinks it's best for him or his family.

I don't disagree with that, although from what I have read the activation of the clause is certainly no lay down misere.

Reeks of a money grab IMO

 

[Lance Uppercut]

hilarious thread

The faux outrage is delicious

 

[tigerwill]

Unethical if you lose a player, due diligence if there is a chance you could acquire him.
In the eye of the beholder, but BJ (nor Essendon) shouldn't be the ones preaching.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Goddard is sounding desperate isn't he? His ambition might be enough to hold the team together?!

Wonder if he used to joke with Nicky Dal about NIck going to North.

 

[eastfreo75]

Is this 'get out of contract' clause available for any player from any club to exploit? If EFC are guilty players will be issued infractions and they can't play for any club. The clubs dangling the bait hoping to poach some of the EFC players must be pretty confident there will be no infractions other wise they wouldn't be making offers.

If EFC are not guilty, no players will be issued infractions. In this instance players couldn't use the break contract clause as their argument has just been proved wrong? Unless they are using the 'grey area' around supplements as their grievance - in which case players from any club could use the same get of contract card and move anywhere that might offer them more money.

Well done Goddard - about time someone said it.

The Essendon has admitted that they did not know what the players were taking and didn't have the reporting systems to prevent any harmful chemical being taken by a player. They broke duty of care and that can be out for a player.

Essendon maybe found not guilty of taking anything illegal but their reporting systems in their own report found that they failed their duty of care.

 

[Big_Luch]

If he feels genuinely aggrieved, absolutely.
But to use the clause as a bargaining chip?

Ryder has 2 years to run on a four year contract, and coming off by far his most productive season...

If he is legally or by the association rules allowed to walk (hypothetically speaking) then he is doing your club a favor by saying he is happy to be traded as opposed to walking for nothing. From memory his manager pretty much said he wouldn't want to leave EFC with no compensation being traded. Its not a get out card..more a play nice Essendon because i have lost confidence in you card. I really dont think anyone can disagree the club has screwed them and they should feel more than pissed about the predicament they are in.