Rumour JUH

[Piggy Smalls]

Most businesses would be very cautious about terminating an employee on leave due to work related mental health issues. It’s straight up against the law. When you’re certain to end up in court, you tend to tread carefully.

I think the case in point is that it was better for the brand to hide him away than have him outed under the 3 strikes rule.

 

[GudOnya]

Going around in circles, but in his position, he may have not gotten the full wage had he lost in court, and I'm reasonably confident that the Dogs/AFL would have won a legal argument that Jamarra wasn't upholding his end of the bargain with the contract he signed (even including mental health context). The fact that he didn't turn up to the treatment he was provided is material to this. You don't have a legal argument if you yell "mental health" and then turn off your phone for all attempts for the club to contact you, for instance.

From that point, he might be set on getting the full wage, but if that was the case, he should have engaged with the mental health treatment more appropriately than what he did.

Yes we're going around in circles because you are looking at it as a Doggies fan, not as a multi-billion dollar business.

"Reasonably confident" is nowhere near enough for the AFL to risk taking it to court and having all of their player contracts deemed unenforceable. Given the amounts at stake on both sides, even a 1% chance of that happening is too much risk to take to potentially save a few hundred thousand dollars. If the CEO of a public company tried doing that they wouldn't survive past the next board meeting.

And the treatment options provided by the club or the AFL are irrelevant, the only treatment that he is required to attend is the treatment included in his "return-to-work" plan which would have been determined by his health practitioners in conjunction with the insurer. He is well within his rights to block all attempts from the club to contact him, contact needs to made by the insurer. This would all be covered by WorkSafe/WorkCover.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yes we're going around in circles because you are looking at it as a Doggies fan, not as a multi-billion dollar business.

"Reasonably confident" is nowhere near enough for the AFL to risk taking it to court and having all of their player contracts deemed unenforceable. Given the amounts at stake on both sides, even a 1% chance of that happening is too much risk to take to potentially save a few hundred thousand dollars. If the CEO of a public company tried doing that they wouldn't survive past the next board meeting.

And the treatment options provided by the club or the AFL are irrelevant, the only treatment that he is required to attend is the treatment included in his "return-to-work" plan which would have been determined by his health practitioners in conjunction with the insurer. He is well within his rights to block all attempts from the club to contact him, contact needs to made by the insurer. This would all be covered by WorkSafe/WorkCover.

• Up until April, there was significant difficulties him finding appropriate treament his program had to be re-worked numerous times, because he wasn't attending it appropriately (this post: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-jamarra-thread.1393458/page-33#post-87537387)
• We can only speculate from late April onward, that he started to take treatment more seriously only because he wanted to get paid and be able to legally defend himself, but you can understand Dogs' frustration as his lack of effort and work from before late April was one in which the Dogs felt like he wasn't fulfilling his contract (even with mental health difficulties) and yet from the November 1 start date that was half of his annual salary that he was getting paid to not prepare himself for the 2026 season.
• I'm biased as a Dogs fan because I want to highlight how the Dogs as a 'small club' lack independence from the AFL, and it's worthwhile to think about how it might have been different if the player was at a more powerful club like West Coast or Collingwood that is in more of a position to disagree with AFL's decision making re one of their players.

Consider this was all largely discussed in April last year around this time on the Dogs board:/

Thread 'The Jamarra Thread'

Mar 24, 2025

I'm agnostic on this.

I've heard rumours from other sources, as probably many here have. I'm not prepared to repeat them because they are just that ... rumours. Unsubstantiated.

Who knows what's correct? Some here might. Most don't. It's obviously complex, unusual. Maybe unique. For my part, I'd prefer to hold fire until there are some official announcements but I can understand the angst of fans when it appears very possible we will lose a highly talented young player who we put years into as a teenager and effectively mortgaged our 2020 draft hand for. This coming right on top...

• dogwatch
• Replies: 4,274
• Forum: Western Bulldogs

• 

At some point, the AFL needs to be able to step in and allow for competitive balance for all clubs (ie, not punishing clubs from a salary cap point of view for players that they cannot functionally select for AFL games), which protects competitive balance, which protects the AFL's multi-billion dollar interest.

Having a few hundred thousand more in the salary cap would have helped the Dogs in 2025 or pushed forward into future seasons naturally help the Dogs, and obviously the Dogs were hindered to being a more competitive team because JUH was unselectable for the whole of the 2025 season.

 

[GudOnya]

I'm biased as a Dogs fan because I want to highlight how the Dogs as a 'small club' lack independence from the AFL, and it's worthwhile to think about how it might have been different if the player was at a more powerful club like West Coast or Collingwood that is in more of a position to disagree with AFL's decision making re one of their players.

Mate quoting other threads on BigFooty is like saying you overheard someone at the pub say he wasn't attending his treatment so I'll just run with the quoted bit.

No club in the AFL is independent of the AFL, and per your example just look at Dayne Beams at Collingwood. You honestly think they didn't want to just fire him for taking the piss too?

It's obvious that you're not going to change your way of thinking and that's fine but you asked why the AFL were scared to let JUH be fired and I explained it to you. Whether you agree with it or not isn't particularly relevant.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Mate quoting other threads on BigFooty is like saying you overheard someone at the pub say he wasn't attending his treatment so I'll just run with the quoted bit.

Nah, it's one of our ITT posters. Links to the club. His behaviour from September 2024 to April last year is more well known by Dogs fans and it was pretty abhorrent and without yet claims that he was suffering from mental ill health at the time.

and per your example just look at Dayne Beams at Collingwood. You honestly think they didn't want to just fire him for taking the piss too?

Wasn't right then either

It's obvious that you're not going to change your way of thinking and that's fine but you asked why the AFL were scared to let JUH be fired and I explained it to you. Whether you agree with it or not isn't particularly relevant.

Oh I don't necessarily disagree with you with how you're explaining why the AFL came to its position that it did - in that you're laying out the logic of the AFL and I can agree with you we're both interpreting the AFL's logic the same way. It's just that obviously the AFL and the Western Bulldogs have competing interests here, and I believe that the AFL should have had more consideration for competitive balance generally but didn't here because it's competitive balance that they would have had to enforce to the benefit of the Western Bulldogs, and the Bulldogs don't have the capacity to stand up to the AFL.

 

[Espio]

Oh I don't necessarily disagree with you with how you're explaining why the AFL came to its position that it did - in that you're laying out the logic of the AFL and I can agree with you we're both interpreting the AFL's logic the same way. It's just that obviously the AFL and the Western Bulldogs have competing interests here, and I believe that the AFL should have had more consideration for competitive balance generally but didn't here because it's competitive balance that they would have had to enforce to the benefit of the Western Bulldogs, and the Bulldogs don't have the capacity to stand up to the AFL.

So hypothetically.

Let's just say the Bulldogs win the race for Butters at the end of the year and sign him to a 9 year 2mill a year contract.
5 years in Zac has a catastrophic knee injury, one which will in time, but he will sit out 2 years and never be anything like the same player.

Now herein lies the question, Butters would undoubtedly in the face of that have some mental health issues, football is his life and defines his value.

He has hurt himself whilst doing his job so it's not like they can stop paying him.

Should the Bulldogs be able to use Mental Health to get Salary Cap Relief?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So hypothetically.

Let's just say the Bulldogs win the race for Butters at the end of the year and sign him to a 9 year 2mill a year contract.
5 years in Zac has a catastrophic knee injury, one which will in time, but he will sit out 2 years and never be anything like the same player.

Now herein lies the question, Butters would undoubtedly in the face of that have some mental health issues, football is his life and defines his value.

He has hurt himself whilst doing his job so it's not like they can stop paying him.

Should the Bulldogs be able to use Mental Health to get Salary Cap Relief?

Butters would still be obligated to fulfil reasonable directions in the form of a mental health plan for his mental health and rehab for the physical injury. If he failed to do that, we should get salary cap relief, but if he did, of course not.

The point being made is that especially during the period of between September 2024 and April 2025, and to a lesser extent thereafter, JUH allegedly wasn't following the directives of his mental health plan or contractual obligations outside of it.

 

[Espio]

Butters would still be obligated to fulfil reasonable directions in the form of a mental health plan for his mental health and rehab for the physical injury. If he failed to do that, we should get salary cap relief, but if he did, of course not.

The point being made is that especially during the period of between September 2024 and April 2025, and to a lesser extent thereafter, JUH allegedly wasn't following the directives of his mental health plan or contractual obligations outside of it.

Surely you see the slippery slope you are trying to stand on. The player is getting paid in any event, letting the club off that regardless of circumstance is rife for exploitation.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Surely you see the slippery slope you are trying to stand on. The player is getting paid in any event, letting the club off that regardless of circumstance is rife for exploitation.

You don't think you should ever be entitled to terminate a contract if a player fails to meet it?

Obviously there are lots and lots of shades of gray in terms of the circumstances like Jamarra (mental health, partial fulfilment of responsibilities, Dogs themselves changing the plan, cultural sensitives).

But theoretically there are cases where it's more straightforward, like the Dogs did with a player in 2016 named Luke Goetz. Although we elected to pay out his contract in full (he only had a couple of months left of a rookie listed contract so the cost was minimal in that instance), he wasn't allowed to access club resources anymore partway through his contract, which was a saving for the club.

 

[Espio]

You don't think you should ever be entitled to terminate a contract if a player fails to meet it?

Obviously there are lots and lots of shades of gray in terms of the circumstances like Jamarra (mental health, partial fulfilment of responsibilities, Dogs themselves changing the plan, cultural sensitives).

But theoretically there are cases where it's more straightforward, like the Dogs did with a player in 2016 named Luke Goetz. Although we elected to pay out his contract in full (he only had a couple of months left of a rookie listed contract so the cost was minimal in that instance), he wasn't allowed to access club resources anymore partway through his contract, which was a saving for the club.

The team can always terminate the contract, they just have to pay out the balance owed and take the salary cap hit.

You are asking a different question.

 

[Saint12]

Mate quoting other threads on BigFooty is like saying you overheard someone at the pub say he wasn't attending his treatment so I'll just run with the quoted bit.

No club in the AFL is independent of the AFL, and per your example just look at Dayne Beams at Collingwood. You honestly think they didn't want to just fire him for taking the piss too?

It's obvious that you're not going to change your way of thinking and that's fine but you asked why the AFL were scared to let JUH be fired and I explained it to you. Whether you agree with it or not isn't particularly relevant.

Hannebury robbed us for 5 years ffs

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The team can always terminate the contract, they just have to pay out the balance owed and take the salary cap hit.

You are asking a different question.

Sure, but the AFLPA CBA allows for a club to terminate a contract without paying out the balance due to "serious or repeated misconduct by that Player". That's something for the lawyers to decide, but isn't just not wanting to complete your rehab or turn up for training, misconduct in the context of your contract's obligations to your team/employer/the AFL?

 

[Espio]

And a bit of food for thought.

Stephen May, mental health issues, should Melbourne get salary cap relief?

Bobby Hill, mental health issues, should Collingwood get salary cap relief?

Elijah Holland, mental health issues, if Carlton didn't pick him back up should they have gotten salary cap relief?

It is a problem that is not going away, and certainly not contained to the Dogs. When you sign the contract you get the whole person.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

And a bit of food for thought.

Stephen May, mental health issues, should Melbourne get salary cap relief?

Bobby Hill, mental health issues, should Collingwood get salary cap relief?

Elijah Holland, mental health issues, if Carlton didn't pick him back up should they have gotten salary cap relief?

It is a problem that is not going away, and certainly not contained to the Dogs. When you sign the contract you get the whole person.

The answer is pretty straighforward.

You get given a mental health plan that you're obligated to follow, under the direction of medical professionals.

If you follow that plan, no, salary cap relief.

If you don't follow that plan, yes, salary cap relief.

Mental health isn't some mysterious thing, in the context of the AFL it is something that's akin to an injury and prevents you from playing.

If you were an AFL player that was given a rehab schedule after tearing a ligament, of which the starting of it was turning up at a surgery location to get surgery, and you simply didn't show up, that would be a form of serious misconduct. The same as not turning up to (for example) a therapy session.

You're acting like it's some big difficult thing to work out, when it's not.

 

[deck]

And a bit of food for thought.

Stephen May, mental health issues, should Melbourne get salary cap relief?

Bobby Hill, mental health issues, should Collingwood get salary cap relief?

Elijah Holland, mental health issues, if Carlton didn't pick him back up should they have gotten salary cap relief?

It is a problem that is not going away, and certainly not contained to the Dogs. When you sign the contract you get the whole person.

Dayne Beams retired due to mental health issues and Collingwood got no salary cap relief.

 

[Espio]

The answer is pretty straighforward.

You get given a mental health plan that you're obligated to follow, under the direction of medical professionals.

If you follow that plan, no, salary cap relief.

If you don't follow that plan, yes, salary cap relief.

Mental health isn't some mysterious thing, in the context of the AFL it is something that's akin to an injury and prevents you from playing.

If you were an AFL player that was given a rehab schedule after tearing a ligament, of which the starting of it was turning up at a surgery location to get surgery, and you simply didn't show up, that would be a form of serious misconduct. The same as not turning up to (for example) a therapy session.

You're acting like it's some big difficult thing to work out, when it's not.

Absurd to think this could be a solution, were you born under a rock?.

The player is getting paid one way or the other, if Bobby Hill has decided it is his time he can say whatever Collingwood want him to (in fact they may provide a sweetener).

As unfair as it sounds when the club signs the contract they take any number of risks including mental health, which I must assume form part of their judgement.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Absurd to think this could be a solution, were you born under a rock?.

The player is getting paid one way or the other, if Bobby Hill has decided it is his time he can say whatever Collingwood want him to (in fact they may provide a sweetener).

As unfair as it sounds when the club signs the contract they take any number of risks including mental health, which I must assume form part of their judgement.

But mental health is not a carte blanche defence generally to all forms of misconduct that could lead to termination surely?

Of course when it plays out in reality (Hill, Ugle-Hagan), it gets messy, its grey areas to determine, and I understand that in some circumstances conduct that would be misconduct is not misconduct in the context of mental ill-health.

But step back for a second and think about the principle of it.

Theoretically, should a player not turn up to training because they wanted to sleep in, say "depression" when asked about it. Then when they get handed a physical copy of a mental health plan or an obligation to be treated, say they put it in the bin, go back to bed, and claim "depression", refuse to talk to anyone, and do that for 12 months without turning up to a single training session or talking to any mental health professional or anyone at the club and still expect the money to keep being deposited into your bank account.

I don't doubt that depression is debilitating, but you also have an obligation even within that context to your employer.

Obviously, my theoretical example is extreme, and we can all agree that that's an instance in which a player should have their contract terminated and not paid (notwithstanding that the club/AFL can continue to pay for and provide treatment at no cost to the player).

Somewhere between that and a player in good faith trying to treat their mental health to get back on the park again, there's an area where it's legally okay to terminate a player's contract. It's a grey area, yes, granted, but there has to be a delimiting point when considering all the facts. Personally, I think the AFL hasn't got that right.

In the case of Hill, he's fully entitled to retire if he believes his time is up and not claim the money for his contract outstanding, or at least negotiate a payout to do so.

Others have done it (Tom Boyd is the perfect example of this. He retired and didn't claim all the money he was entitled to because he intended to treat his mental health, which was debilitating and eventually was complete in so in preventing him to play AFL, but he didn't try and take the Dogs for a ride and claim the contract he was owed in the infamous 7 year deal he signed).

 

[Espio]

But mental health is not a carte blanche defence generally to all forms of misconduct that could lead to termination surely?

Of course when it plays out in reality (Hill, Ugle-Hagan), it gets messy, its grey areas to determine, and I understand that in some circumstances conduct that would be misconduct is not misconduct in the context of mental ill-health.

But step back for a second and think about the principle of it.

Theoretically, should a player not turn up to training because they wanted to sleep in, say "depression" when asked about it. Then when they get handed a physical copy of a mental health plan or an obligation to be treated, say they put it in the bin, go back to bed, and claim "depression", refuse to talk to anyone, and do that for 12 months without turning up to a single training session or talking to any mental health professional or anyone at the club and still expect the money to keep being deposited into your bank account.

I don't doubt that depression is debilitating, but you also have an obligation even within that context to your employer.

Obviously, my theoretical example is extreme, and we can all agree that that's an instance in which a player should have their contract terminated and not paid (notwithstanding that the club/AFL can continue to pay for and provide treatment at no cost to the player).

Somewhere between that and a player in good faith trying to treat their mental health to get back on the park again, there's an area where it's legally okay to terminate a player's contract. It's a grey area, yes, granted, but there has to be a delimiting point when considering all the facts. Personally, I think the AFL hasn't got that right.

In the case of Hill, he's fully entitled to retire if he believes his time is up and not claim the money for his contract outstanding, or at least negotiate a payout to do so.

Others have done it (Tom Boyd is the perfect example of this. He retired and didn't claim all the money he was entitled to because he intended to treat his mental health, which was debilitating and eventually was complete in so in preventing him to play AFL, but he didn't try and take the Dogs for a ride and claim the contract he was owed in the infamous 7 year deal he signed).

You are quoting delimiting factors that you yourself of all people know are not measurable.

Your "principles" means nothing, the contract does all the lifting, once that is signed it is not only a contract with the player but the AFL also.

Until the CBA is rewritten or the player association somehow submit to extremely restrictive contracts your concept is smoke.

 

[AndyD]

Absurd to think this could be a solution, were you born under a rock?.

The player is getting paid one way or the other, if Bobby Hill has decided it is his time he can say whatever Collingwood want him to (in fact they may provide a sweetener).

As unfair as it sounds when the club signs the contract they take any number of risks including mental health, which I must assume form part of their judgement.

I think the fairest solution would be a way for the clubs to renounce their rights to a player in a JUH/May situation, with clear objective criteria set out to assess those situations. Once done the club receives the full cap reduction for the remainder of the contract, with the remainder paid in full by the AFL, with them also assuming any welfare responsibilities, with the player becoming an UFA at the end of original term of the contract. If a player requires this more than once in their career, they are effectively retired after the second time and cannot be relisted again, as a protective measure both for the player (as no different to a player with a recurring physical injury that forces retirement, if their mental health causes them to break multiple contracts then it is likely not mentally healthy to continue to be in that environment) as well as the club/rest of the club staff.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

The Suns have opted against handing a debut to Western Bulldogs recruit Jamarra Ugle-Hagan after coach Damien Hardwick suggested he needed more time to get up to speed following a turbulent 2025 season.

 

[Whats a Battle]

Most businesses would be very cautious about terminating an employee on leave due to work related mental health issues. It’s straight up against the law. When you’re certain to end up in court, you tend to tread carefully.

Work related? Come on man, they're drug related. I don't think most people would look too kindly on someone trying to screw over a business like that.

The Suns have opted against handing a debut to Western Bulldogs recruit Jamarra Ugle-Hagan after coach Damien Hardwick suggested he needed more time to get up to speed following a turbulent 2025 season.

Up to “speed”. Heh.

 

[ioppolo]

The Suns have opted against handing a debut to Western Bulldogs recruit Jamarra Ugle-Hagan after coach Damien Hardwick suggested he needed more time to get up to speed following a turbulent 2025 season.

Probably unfit as hell. Endurance would be shot.

 

[Piggy Smalls]

I'm glad he's being made to earn it. It'll ultimately make or break him IMO.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You are quoting delimiting factors that you yourself of all people know are not measurable.

The nature of contract law is that, eventually it has to be measured though, that's the point. The facts get laid out and then someone considers them.

Your "principles" means nothing, the contract does all the lifting, once that is signed it is not only a contract with the player but the AFL also.

Yes which is why the AFL is obligated to stand up in defence of its clubs. Once the AFL's set up a system where there are standard terms to contracts and it imposes a salary cap upon its clubs, JUH isn't only taking advantage of the Western Bulldogs, he's also taking advantage of the AFL by 'imbalancing' their interest in competitive balance. But it's a cost the AFL can more readily absorb, and their interest is more abstract in the sense of competitive balance (the cost to the AFL is that they have 1 of their 18 clubs that practically had one lessor list spot and 800k less in their salary cap, which goes against their clear competitive balance interest, but only to a small extent). The cost to the Dogs is much more significant, his actions led to it it being far more challenging for the Dogs to win games last year.

Until the CBA is rewritten

I would hope that the AFL in its next round of negotiations with the AFLPA, as a representation of the clubs, is far more willing to challenge the AFLPA in having to pay players this way, and state that they are being prepared to go to court as their defence.

to extremely restrictive contracts your concept is smoke.

I personally wouldn't characterise the expectations of players to have to make more effort to engage in good faith to treat their own mental health that they're claiming debilitates them from conducting their contractual duty to train and play for their club as being 'extremely restrictive'.

 

[MagpieJo]

Absurd to think this could be a solution, were you born under a rock?.

The player is getting paid one way or the other, if Bobby Hill has decided it is his time he can say whatever Collingwood want him to (in fact they may provide a sweetener).

As unfair as it sounds when the club signs the contract they take any number of risks including mental health, which I must assume form part of their judgement.

and its absolutely wrong, ive said it about players at other clubs and I will say it about Bobby, regardless of the salary cap issue, which fricken stinks, he should not get paid anymore than us mere mortals who get so many sick days a year, and then either use holiday time or savings. especially when its pretty obvious they are not doing the things they need to to get whole. neither JUH or Bobby's issues are due to the pressure of footy or an injury. Its a disgrace that they are fine taking such a big pay packet for sweetfrickall! And clubs should not have to pay out their contracts! make em go back to the club and earn it as a cleaner or orange boy, see how quickly they make an effort to recover.