Remove this Banner Ad

Bruce Francis (Part3)

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I found this quote from Bruce interesting:

"I'm not usually a tin foil hat, conspiracy theorist, but I reckon we were set up from the start by the AFL."

For someone who proclaims impartiality, he's clearly in one camp.
WE is somewhat representative of a position. Great find Dee.
 
I found this quote from Bruce interesting:

"I'm not usually a tin foil hat, conspiracy theorist, but I reckon we were set up from the start by the AFL."

For someone who proclaims impartiality, he's clearly in one camp.
It wasn't a quote from Bruce it was a reply
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

That's just weird. Why report the AFL for failing its duty of care and not Essendon?

People have been confused by who the Contract Principal is and the old chestnut of who employees the players. Players go club, club then goes AFL
 
That assertion would create legal argument for years. I believe they are employed by the clubs but as part of their employment with the club they also have contractual obligations with the AFL.
Yep they negotiate with the club, take direction from the club in a master servant legal arrangement and the club will either employ them or dismiss them directly.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

That assertion would create legal argument for years. I believe they are employed by the clubs but as part of their employment with the club they also have contractual obligations with the AFL.
My understanding is that the AFL are the employers. It's been discussed on this board before, and it comes up whenever people talk about the draft & restraint of trade issues.
Players negotiate contracts with their club, but the AFL signs off on them (and can reject them).
 
My understanding is that the AFL are the employers. It's been discussed on this board before, and it comes up whenever people talk about the draft & restraint of trade issues.
Players negotiate contracts with their club, but the AFL signs off on them (and can reject them).
I'm in agreement with Reality rules that clubs are the employers but it's never been legally tested AFAIK.
 
My understanding is that the AFL are the employers. It's been discussed on this board before, and it comes up whenever people talk about the draft & restraint of trade issues.
Players negotiate contracts with their club, but the AFL signs off on them (and can reject them).

Only if those contracts do not conform to the AFL Rules. A governing body sets the framework for the contractual environment in a attempt to have equalization across the league on expenditure. A pseudo award type of situation, hence COLA and so forth.

Clubs get players jobs with friendly companies to circumnavigate the salary cap or other benefits like cars and the like. If no salary cap existed, the richer clubs would blow everyone else into the weeds. Yes it's great in theory.

Clubs have their own infrastructure. The AFL allows clubs to engage whom ever as long as it's within the AFL Rules.
 
blackcat might be a bit random at times but he has great taste in music :)

Change "Mr Grieves" to "Mr Dank" and you have the lyrics for the whole supplements scandal.
meta entropy then?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entropy
i would prefer just funny carnt, or u can use Chief, he of unmatched wisdom's swear filter, it think it is camp aign er

thnx Chief, he of unmatched wisdom
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top