Hot Topic Will Elijah Hollands get another gig at Carlton?

[Aphrodite]

No speculating on alleged 'rumours'

Thanks all!

Folks, this is the way things are here.

Posters are responsible for what they post. Moderators can not attest to the accuracy or otherwise of any rumour posted.

Moderators will intervene for a couple of reasons.

1. If a thread is threatening to be derailed because of a post.

2. If invested parties request the removal of material.

None of this draws a conclusion as to the accuracy or otherwise of the original post.

There is no need to further speculate. What will be will be.
Click to expand...

Also, you need to remember that this thread like all parts of this forum is bound by the rules of poster conduct. If you want to express skepticism towards a rumour that's fine, but having a crack at posters who are contributors to this forum is simply not on and will be acted upon.

Simply put, don't be a dick.

Thanks all!

 

[teddy-hopkins]

No club can flick every guy out the door who doesn't tick the "good bloke" box and hope to be successful.

45 guys on a list. Some of them will be ordinary blokes. We're here to win football games, not a bible reading club. Successful clubs find a way.

 

[Soapy V]

No club can flick every guy out the door who doesn't tick the "good bloke" box and hope to be successful.

45 guys on a list. Some of them will be ordinary blokes. We're here to win football games, not a bible reading club. Successful clubs find a way.

Not many have done what Elijah has done. Long bow

Key is standards, culture and having trust of the playing group. If you don't have that you don't win many games. Successful clubs would have shown Elijah the door or he wouldn't have been able to go so far in the first place

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Not many have done what Elijah has done. Long bow

Key is standards, culture and having trust of the playing group. If you don't have that you don't win many games. Successful clubs would have shown Elijah the door or he wouldn't have been able to go so far in the first place

While I agree with the idea of this... Tyson Stengle almost OD'd down in Geelong after previously having issues with substances at the Crows and Tigers... Still playing for the Cats and from memory was rolled out a week later to play in a big win.

Tigers dynasty team had bucket loads of drama over the COVID era with scandals and issues - Sydney Stack, Kebabgate, Dimma cheating etc

Pies still have DeGoey on the list, someone who could and should have been booted from the AFL many times over with non stop issues overseas, getting in bar fights when he was young etc.

Dees had Steven May and Clarry

WBD with Liber, Dalhaus, Stringer etc


Unless Elijah has killed someone or something else heinous, I doubt what he's done is that far beyond what plenty of other teams have worked through with the players listed above who were integral to their teams success.

 

[Soapy V]

While I agree with the idea of this... Tyson Stengle almost OD'd down in Geelong after previously having issues with substances at the Crows and Tigers... Still playing for the Cats and from memory was rolled out a week later to play in a big win.

Tigers dynasty team had bucket loads of drama over the COVID era with scandals and issues - Sydney Stack, Kebabgate, Dimma cheating etc

Pies still have DeGoey on the list, someone who could and should have been booted from the AFL many times over with non stop issues overseas, getting in bar fights when he was young etc.

Dees had Steven May and Clarry

WBD with Liber, Dalhaus, Stringer etc


Unless Elijah has killed someone or something else heinous, I doubt what he's done is that far beyond what plenty of other teams have worked through with the players listed above who were integral to their teams success.

Not even close to a relevant comparison.

 

[Blue By Blood]

Not many have done what Elijah has done. Long bow

Key is standards, culture and having trust of the playing group. If you don't have that you don't win many games. Successful clubs would have shown Elijah the door or he wouldn't have been able to go so far in the first place

Whilst I tend to agree.. we've turfed nearly every player in the past who posed a problem. This time we might actually be truly supporting our player and giving him a chance to earn that trust back. Standards go both ways. If a player feels truly supported they have the environment to flourish and it can lead to good things. I don't know the depths of the issues but I'm glad it looks like, at least on face value, that we are giving a player strong support.

He looked pretty chummy with teammates in the footage I saw. It certainly didn't scream of a player lacking friendships with the playing group. The key takeaway is IF he finds his way back on our list hopefully he takes the opportunity and repays us.

 

[Opium]

Not many have done what Elijah has done. Long bow

Key is standards, culture and having trust of the playing group. If you don't have that you don't win many games. Successful clubs would have shown Elijah the door or he wouldn't have been able to go so far in the first place

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. If reports are true and that Walsh has taken Elijah under his wing and endorsed him to remain.

 

[tarczonandjane]

There are some good questions being asked around here on Elijah.

If all Elijah has done is at the level of his own personal impact (like Stengle, De Goey, etc), then I tend to agree on another chance. Though I maintain the glimpses of good football in his career so far are fleeting and that he is very much on borrowed time.

But I have to read between the lines and speculate that perhaps the level of impact has gone beyond the personal and been detrimental to the wider playing group. If that’s is the case, then it would suggest the club should take a less forgiving stance than clubs have with other players listed above.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Not even close to a relevant comparison.

Well you would know better than us Soap, none of us actually know what Elijah has done aside from rumours.

Playing group can't be too upset with him if he's on camp and back training at the club though...

 

[Y Goat]

There are some good questions being asked around here on Elijah.

If all Elijah has done is at the level of his own personal impact (like Stengle, De Goey, etc), then I tend to agree on another chance. Though I maintain the glimpses of good football in his career so far are fleeting and that he is very much on borrowed time.

But I have to read between the lines and speculate that perhaps the level of impact has gone beyond the personal and been detrimental to the wider playing group. If that’s is the case, then it would suggest the club should take a less forgiving stance than clubs have with other players listed above.

Very well articulated Tarcz. This is about on par with my view too

And btw as a supported I’m now focussed more on the ones coming in hungry like the new draftees & in-trades this year

 

[Soapy V]

Well you would know better than us Soap, none of us actually know what Elijah has done aside from rumours.

Playing group can't be too upset with him if he's on camp and back training at the club though...

I believe his ability to earn back trust and how that plays out by February will determine his future as much as anything else

Just my take

 

[Bfevola]

Its a risk with Elijah. This was all out in the open when we traded for him, and that he was going to put his head down and earn the trust of the club and team mates. He did that. Then he re-offended. Seems like he goes back on his word.

That is the risk. But as a SSP or Rookie then we can just part ways if he does whatever it is again.

But if he is influencing others. And what he did was that bad. Then why is he at the club still.

Very strange really. Club cant say much due to privacy i guess. But its confusing for us.

 

[AT97]

Its a risk with Elijah. This was all out in the open when we traded for him, and that he was going to put his head down and earn the trust of the club and team mates. He did that. Then he re-offended. Seems like he goes back on his word.

That is the risk. But as a SSP or Rookie then we can just part ways if he does whatever it is again.

But if he is influencing others. And what he did was that bad. Then why is he at the club still.

Very strange really. Club cant say much due to privacy i guess. But its confusing for us.

Leaving the off-field aside, having a look at training and the difference between Elijah and Will ball in hand, I think is stark.

 

[blue healer]

I'm having real difficulties understanding the rationale behind the decisions we've seem to have made with Elijah.

Firstly, like most and other than rumors, I have no idea what he's done and really have no right to know. But whatever it was it was enough for the club to offer up a contracted best 22 player virtually free to a good home. And when there were no takers we terminated his contract and presumedly paid him out. This is a pretty serious action against a player who most regard is best 22 in our team.

To now turn around and offer him an opportunity to rejoin our list as a rookie is a very odd move for mine. It seems apparent that, despite the above actions, we believe that he's not beyond redemption.

So if we feel that way why wouldn't we have read him the riot act, warned of consequences and retained him on the list, we are paying him anyway?

Instead we've paid his contract out but given him the opportunity of re-rookieing and paying whatever the rookie cost is over and above a 12 month payout. How is this not rewarding poor conduct if we go ahead with him?

As for his importance to the team, I think like many his perceived ability has grown in proportion to his absence. Yes I think, when available, he was best 22 over the last two years but I'm not so sure that he is going forward. His position in the team isn't enhanced by the loss of Charlie, TDK or JSOS he plays none of those positions and it's arguable that the addition of Hayward, Florent and Flanders, who are all odds on to play in our early teams if fit, push him further down the pecking order.

I just don't understand this logic.

Edit: sorry as pointed out it was Ainsworth not Flanders.

 

[Soapy V]

Whilst I tend to agree.. we've turfed nearly every player in the past who posed a problem. This time we might actually be truly supporting our player and giving him a chance to earn that trust back. Standards go both ways. If a player feels truly supported they have the environment to flourish and it can lead to good things. I don't know the depths of the issues but I'm glad it looks like, at least on face value, that we are giving a player strong support.

He looked pretty chummy with teammates in the footage I saw. It certainly didn't scream of a player lacking friendships with the playing group. The key takeaway is IF he finds his way back on our list hopefully he takes the opportunity and repays us.

Massive difference between being friends or friendly as opposed to having trust

 

[azlou]

One thing Ill add, apart from him resolving his issues and meeting certain KPI's, if he has the trust of the players and isnt at odds with any of them, then its a no brainer .

I'm having real difficulties understanding the rationale behind the decisions we've seem to have made with Elijah.

Firstly, like most and other than rumors, I have no idea what he's done and really have no right to know. But whatever it was it was enough for the club to offer up a contracted best 22 player virtually free to a good home. And when there were no takers we terminated his contract and presumedly paid him out. This is a pretty serious action against a player who most regard is best 22 in our team.

To now turn around and offer him an opportunity to rejoin our list as a rookie is a very odd move for mine. It seems apparent that, despite the above actions, we believe that he's not beyond redemption.

So if we feel that way why wouldn't we have read him the riot act, warned of consequences and retained him on the list, we are paying him anyway?

Instead we've paid his contract out but given him the opportunity of re-rookieing and paying whatever the rookie cost is over and above a 12 month payout. How is this not rewarding poor conduct if we go ahead with him?

As for his importance to the team, I think like many his perceived ability has grown in proportion to his absence. Yes I think, when available, he was best 22 over the last two years but I'm not so sure that he is going forward. His position in the team isn't enhanced by the loss of Charlie, TDK or JSOS he plays none of those positions and it's arguable that the addition of Hayward, Florent and Flanders, who are all odds on to play in our early teams if fit, push him further down the pecking order.

I just don't understand this logic.

Flanders ?

 

[Soapy V]

I'm having real difficulties understanding the rationale behind the decisions we've seem to have made with Elijah.

Firstly, like most and other than rumors, I have no idea what he's done and really have no right to know. But whatever it was it was enough for the club to offer up a contracted best 22 player virtually free to a good home. And when there were no takers we terminated his contract and presumedly paid him out. This is a pretty serious action against a player who most regard is best 22 in our team.

To now turn around and offer him an opportunity to rejoin our list as a rookie is a very odd move for mine. It seems apparent that, despite the above actions, we believe that he's not beyond redemption.

So if we feel that way why wouldn't we have read him the riot act, warned of consequences and retained him on the list, we are paying him anyway?

Instead we've paid his contract out but given him the opportunity of re-rookieing and paying whatever the rookie cost is over and above a 12 month payout. How is this not rewarding poor conduct if we go ahead with him?

As for his importance to the team, I think like many his perceived ability has grown in proportion to his absence. Yes I think, when available, he was best 22 over the last two years but I'm not so sure that he is going forward. His position in the team isn't enhanced by the loss of Charlie, TDK or JSOS he plays none of those positions and it's arguable that the addition of Hayward, Florent and Flanders, who are all odds on to play in our early teams if fit, push him further down the pecking order.

I just don't understand this logic.

Fair summation

I have no idea what the club is thinking and everyone I ask seems to not know either or isn't saying.

The Facts are simple. He was delisted and paid out with a year to go and I believe it's a fair assessment to say it wasn't because he doesn't have ability or isn't in right age bracket

Then, he was offered up free to anyone and no one even enquired. Wasn't even offered a train on spot anywhere else.

Says to me he is coming from a long way back. He is also competeing with a number of players for one spot. Might also be that given issues it is a good thing to keep him around a football club. Could also be a long term view and he plays VFL for a year? I honestly don't know and it's a big call wahtever they do

TBH it's one last spot that probably won't affect us anyway.

 

[blue healer]

Fair summation

I have no idea what the club is thinking and everyone I ask seems to not know either or isn't saying.

The Facts are simple. He was delisted and paid out with a year to go and I believe it's a fair assessment to say it wasn't because he doesn't have ability or isn't in right age bracket

Then, he was offered up free to anyone and no one even enquired. Wasn't even offered a train on spot anywhere else.

Says to me he is coming from a long way back. He is also competeing with a number of players for one spot. Might also be that given issues it is a good thing to keep him around a football club. Could also be a long term view and he plays VFL for a year? I honestly don't know and it's a big call wahtever they do

TBH it's one last spot that probably won't affect us anyway.

I agree with the bolded but don't think the optics would be too flash.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Massive difference between being friends or friendly as opposed to having trust

I've went a watched a bit of training this morning. As people have said he 'seems' to be a part the group. At one stage, copped a heavy knock and had Ollie and 3-4 others go and help him up. Sort of buzzes around. Seems good mates with Gov.

As you say though, that's different to having trust of the group through a long arduous season.

 

[blue healer]

Flanders ?

Oops, Ainsworth my bad, they all look the same to me

 

[KnobHead]

Not fully across what Elijah has done but he’s a great talent, has great vision

Can live with “ordinary blokes” being on the list, but if a player is having a negative impact on the playing group and isn’t on the same page with other players with fitness and culture standards etc, that’s a completely different issue.

I’m not sure with what Liv has done but he’s been fortunate to be given a second chance. Up to him if he grabs it.

 

[What else we can do]

I got to admit he's a gun remember the Geelong game, hope he get's his mind right and realises what a skillful player he is.

 

[lily of laguna]

I'm having real difficulties understanding the rationale behind the decisions we've seem to have made with Elijah.

Firstly, like most and other than rumors, I have no idea what he's done and really have no right to know. But whatever it was it was enough for the club to offer up a contracted best 22 player virtually free to a good home. And when there were no takers we terminated his contract and presumedly paid him out. This is a pretty serious action against a player who most regard is best 22 in our team.

To now turn around and offer him an opportunity to rejoin our list as a rookie is a very odd move for mine. It seems apparent that, despite the above actions, we believe that he's not beyond redemption.

So if we feel that way why wouldn't we have read him the riot act, warned of consequences and retained him on the list, we are paying him anyway?

Instead we've paid his contract out but given him the opportunity of re-rookieing and paying whatever the rookie cost is over and above a 12 month payout. How is this not rewarding poor conduct if we go ahead with him?

As for his importance to the team, I think like many his perceived ability has grown in proportion to his absence. Yes I think, when available, he was best 22 over the last two years but I'm not so sure that he is going forward. His position in the team isn't enhanced by the loss of Charlie, TDK or JSOS he plays none of those positions and it's arguable that the addition of Hayward, Florent and Flanders, who are all odds on to play in our early teams if fit, push him further down the pecking order.

I just don't understand this logic.

Edit: sorry as pointed out it was Ainsworth not Flanders.

What is hard to understand?

The consequences of his actions were to let him seek a new home and then if he didn't find one, cancel his contract.

Firm and decisive with a clear message to all that there are consequences to behaviour for any player.

As a mature and supportive club we have said "your behaviour was not acceptable but we care and want the best for you and as such if you provide us with enough evidence that you really do want a career in football, we will give you the chance to prove it by being a train on".

No promises, no commitment other than to give him a chance to make a life changing choice for the well being of a player that was one of us.

I don't see why the steps taken are confusing and I am sure that even if we as outsiders don't understand the process or situation, you can rest assured Lij does.

 

[btdg]

What is hard to understand?

The consequences of his actions were to let him seek a new home and then if he didn't find one, cancel his contract.

Firm and decisive with a clear message to all that there are consequences to behaviour for any player.

As a mature and supportive club we have said "your behaviour was not acceptable but we care and want the best for you and as such if you provide us with enough evidence that you really do want a career in football, we will give you the chance to prove it by being a train on".

No promises, no commitment other than to give him a chance to make a life changing choice for the well being of a player that was one of us.

I don't see why the steps taken are confusing and I am sure that even if we as outsiders don't understand the process or situation, you can rest assured Lij does.

The obvious part that is hard to understand is that his actions:

a) are bad enough to warrant public suspension by the team (but not formal AFL suspension), and for his contract to be paid out (not cancelled); but

b) are not considered in the public interest (by the club, league, or media) and have therefore been hidden, including on Bigfooty; and

c) it is considered appropriate that he continue to train, live and play alongside the group, so it's clearly not a concern around his influence on others, or a personal conflict so serious he can't be in the building...

But I still don't see how (a) and (c) sit alongside each other, and there doesn't really seem a precedent that comes to mind. Other players who have misbehaved have either been delisted and banished, or kept their contracts but faced internal suspension and been held out from playing.

We didn't have to go through what seems a farce of a trade period, then delist him, to send the message you allude to, and doing so creates a bizarre situation for the other train-on players we have invited. Are they actually competing for a real spot, or is it just Elijah's? As it stands, we are presumably paying his 2026 salary for him to play, train and work normally alongside the 2026 group, but he's not actually on the list, and might not be, or maybe he will, but presumably getting paid again with a new contract?

There's two more obvious suggestions as to what is going on that spring to mind:

1. The club doesn't know what the **** it is doing and is soundly in the process of screwing things up (one way or another)

2. There's a negotiated agreement in place with the AFL and AFLPA that he won't be formally suspended, but he can't play until X,Y,Z date, we can delist him and replace his list spot

(2) is going into conspiracy theory territory, and seems unnecessary when as a Carlton supporter I have learnt to just assume that (1) is the case unless proven otherwise. It's been a safe enough bet for most of the last three decades

 

[blue healer]

The obvious part that is hard to understand is that his actions:

a) are bad enough to warrant public suspension by the team (but not formal AFL suspension), and for his contract to be paid out (not cancelled); but

b) are not considered in the public interest (by the club, league, or media) and have therefore been hidden, including on Bigfooty; and

c) it is considered appropriate that he continue to train, live and play alongside the group, so it's clearly not a concern around his influence on others, or a personal conflict so serious he can't be in the building...

But I still don't see how (a) and (c) sit alongside each other, and there doesn't really seem a precedent that comes to mind. Other players who have misbehaved have either been delisted and banished, or kept their contracts but faced internal suspension and been held out from playing.

We didn't have to go through what seems a farce of a trade period, then delist him, to send the message you allude to, and doing so creates a bizarre situation for the other train-on players we have invited. Are they actually competing for a real spot, or is it just Elijah's? As it stands, we are presumably paying his 2026 salary for him to play, train and work normally alongside the 2026 group, but he's not actually on the list, and might not be, or maybe he will, but presumably getting paid again with a new contract?

There's two more obvious suggestions as to what is going on that spring to mind:

1. The club doesn't know what the **** it is doing and is soundly in the process of screwing things up (one way or another)

2. There's a negotiated agreement in place with the AFL and AFLPA that he won't be formally suspended, but he can't play until X,Y,Z date, we can delist him and replace his list spot

(2) is going into conspiracy theory territory, and seems unnecessary when as a Carlton supporter I have learnt to just assume that (1) is the case unless proven otherwise. It's been a safe enough bet for most of the last three decades

What he says

 

[marcmurphy3]

It is 100% hard to understand. Not saying the club has done wrong, but without all the info, it's definately hard to understand. Im not sure how anyone could dispute that.

His actions were bad enough to warrant getting his contract torn up. But now hes training for a rookie spot. Could argue its a kick up the bum, but there are ways to do that without sacking him.

Its super odd. Never seen it before and doubt we'll see it again anytime soon.