Rumour JUH

[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.

 

[MagpieJo]

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.


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 17 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.

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.


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'.

i agree totally with what you are saying. pretty over these entitled overpaid lucky to be in jobs they love, lucky to set themselves up for life in just a few short years if they knuckle down! and yes, the club suffers terribly, it may well be Bobby cost us a grand final appearance last season. They have a very grown up, professional contract, its time they appreciate it and act like they deserve it!

the way mental health problems get chucked around these days is an absolute insult to genuine sufferers who give everything they have to beat it. And AFL is disgraceful the way they have used that term.