St Kilda confirm it will pursue Essendon for Carlisles pay

[jenny61_99]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...n/news-story/51567e391c651a7fec373a0780aadf15

ST KILDA has confirmed it will pursue Essendon for Jake Carlisle’s pay packet given his season-long doping ban.



Saints chief executive Matt Finnis on Sunday challenged Carlisle to use the year to prepare to become the best mobile defender in the competition.

He conceded there were real challenges for Carlisle to use his time constructively given his chequered past including his Snapchat indiscretion last year.

Finnis said all four clubs with affected players wanted a brokered deal that saw Essendon pay, confirming Saturday’s Herald Sun report.

The combined wage bill of Carlisle, Patrick Ryder, Angus Monfries, Jake Melksham and Stewart Crameri is an estimated $2.4 million.

If Essendon had to pay their salaries from the date of their January 12 suspension until their return on November 13 the Dons’ payout could top $2 million.

 

[Suma Magic]

So I think the clubs can legally not pay the players, and the players would then have to sue the bombers.

So can just sort out a deal to avoid all that.

Seems like just getting the bombers to pay the salaries is in everyone's best interests.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Caveat Emptor. Clearly the Saints learned nothing from the episode with the last bloke they picked up from Essendon.

 

[Hamingja]

Seems like just getting the AFL to pay the salaries is in everyone's best interests.

EFA. It's going to end up that every other club and thus other clubs member's money going in to the pockets of convicted drug cheats.

 

[Suma Magic]

Caveat Emptor. Clearly they learned nothing from the episode with the last bloke they picked up from Essendon.

The buyer knew that they wouldn't have to pay him if suspended. So not sure your point is relevant.

 

[jerry springer]

the drug cheats should not be paid fullstop

 

[Suma Magic]

EFA. It's going to end up that every other club and thus other clubs member's money going in to the pockets of convicted drug cheats.

Yeah that's reasonable. I assuming you mean that bombers pay but ultimately they afl pay with assistance due to their dire situation.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The buyer knew that they wouldn't have to pay him if suspended. So not sure your point is relevant.

Not sure they knew that for sure otherwise they wouldnt be seeking compensation. Either StKilda pays him, Essendon pays him, the AFL pays him, or nobody pays him.

StKilda recruited him knowing the risks that hed be unavaialble for a lengthy period. Its their contract with Carlisle, no reason why they shouldnt honour it. The only possible cause for compensation is the Monfries case as it was prior to the scandal breaking out but Port would have to prove Essendon withheld information.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Just a question. Did Ahmed Saad get paid during his ban? If so, who paid him. If not, why should these guys get paid? After all, the only thing he did was drink a sports drink that he didn't realise contained a banned substance. He hardly lined up for injection after injection even if he didn't realise the injections were banned.

 

[Suma Magic]

Not sure they knew that for sure otherwise they wouldnt be seeking compensation. Either StKilda pays him, Essendon pays him, the AFL pays him, or nobody pays him.

StKilda recruited him knowing the risks that hed be unavaialble for a lengthy period. Its their contract with Carlisle, no reason why they shouldnt honour it. The only possible cause for compensation is the Monfries case as it was prior to the scandal breaking out but Port would have to prove Essendon withheld information.

They knew for sure that they wouldn't have to pay him if suspended. Because they don't.

So they can get the bombers to pay. The bombers can call their bluff. Then the saints have the choice of not paying him (and helping him to sue the bombers) or just paying him because they don't want to piss of Carlisle.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If they dont pay him they have to sack him. Not sure they want to do that.

Although it is StKilda...

 

[Muggs]

Just a question. Did Ahmed Saad get paid during his ban? If so, who paid him. If not, why should these guys get paid? After all, the only thing he did was drink a sports drink that he didn't realised contained a banned substance. He hardly lined up for injection after injection even if he didn't realise the injections were banned.

Saad got delisted during most of his ban, so doubt it. There was an ABC news report saying he could not get paid but not backed up by a quote or reference.

 

[Muggs]

So I think the clubs can legally not pay the players, and the players would then have to sue the bombers.

So can just sort out a deal to avoid all that.

Seems like just getting the bombers to pay the salaries is in everyone's best interests.

Can't see how the clubs can legally avoid paying the players, the have a contact. Unless the AFL comes out and says can't get paid.

 

[Suma Magic]

Can't see how the clubs can legally avoid paying the players, the have a contact. Unless the AFL comes out and says can't get paid.

Maybe I'm misinformed. I read on Twitter that they don't have to under (some) anti-doping regulations.

 

[Muggs]

Maybe I'm misinformed. I read on Twitter that they don't have to under (some) anti-doping regulations.

That's the case, bit of confusion to who decides that though the club or the AFL.

In this case considering the multiple clubs involved old expect it to be the AFL. While the club may be able to do it if one club holds a different penalty than the other clubs the player(s) affected may than have a case against their club, being double penalised.

Edit, either way the club still had to pay something.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Wow, this will be another 3-4 million that the bombers will have to pay this year.

Plus all the players not playing AFL.

 

[Randomizor]

Wow, this will be another 3-4 million that the bombers will have to pay this year.

Plus all the players not playing AFL.

Plus being a bona fide criminal entity

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Maybe I'm misinformed. I read on Twitter that they don't have to under (some) anti-doping regulations.

You seemed to be very adamant prior to this point.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

You seemed to be very adamant prior to this point.

It's because you sound so convincing Timmy.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It's because you sound so convincing Timmy.

Scared him off with my old well worn tactic of using common sense

 

[ManWithNoName]

Good for St Kilda.

 

[Suma Magic]

You seemed to be very adamant prior to this point.

It's because the code says they don't have to. As pointed out above, it's not clear who decides this.

What is clear, is that the issue is more complex than "they knew a ban was a possibility".

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Nah not really. They knew the ban was a possibility. They entered the trade and player contract with eyes wide open.

Its a simple concept that people will try and make look more murky than it really is.

I assume StKilda dont want to sack Carlisle so their only option will be to honor his contract. Getting Essendon to foot the bill will be a stretch.

 

[ManWithNoName]

It's because the code says they don't have to. As pointed out above, it's not clear who decides this.

What is clear, is that the issue is more complex than "they knew a ban was a possibility".

Can you post the relevant parts of this code?

 

[Suma Magic]

Nah not really. They knew the ban was a possibility. They entered the trade and player contract with eyes wide open.

Agree completely with your last two sentences. However they don't disagree with my post.