Oppo Camp Regular Non Eagles Discussion V2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Club will now work closely with the AFL regarding options available to replace Jones’ spot on the list for the 2022 season.

No surprise that Carlton still aren't totally across the concept of drafting players.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

That's 500k of salary cap freed up for the Blues, would be funny if they swooped in on Greenwood or Rory Thompson, with the latter actually a good replacement option. I know clubs probably have some kind of unspoken agreement about not doing it, but i'm not a fan of the system as it is, delist a player and they should be up for grabs.
 
Good on jones for taking a stand.
He definitely got a few more years in the afl than i thought he would when he was a kpf

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

People can say what they like about people being vaccinated or not. Whether the information Jones is using to make his decision are sound or not is an entirely different argument.

However, anyone and I mean anyone who has the conviction to stand by their beliefs especially when it's highly likely to hurt them a lot financially I have a lot of respect for.

In this cancel culture we live in, I am absolutely fine with someone having different beliefs than me (so many others aren't) and if they are willing to make a stand and say no, this is who I am, I will always respect that.

Best of luck in the future Liam, you turned what looked like being delisted as a poor forward into being a very underrated Key Back.
 
No surprise that Carlton still aren't totally across the concept of drafting players.

Did lol but to be fair, I can see some Carlton supporters arguing that since the AFL were the ones to establish the mandate then it is hardly fair to be left high and dry losing a best-22 player through no fault of the club

Although officially he 'retired' so I don't know what to make of that
 
Did lol but to be fair, I can see some Carlton supporters arguing that since the AFL were the ones to establish the mandate then it is hardly fair to be left high and dry losing a best-22 player through no fault of the club

By that logic we should have hit up the AFL for compensation for losing Rioli for 2 years. We lost a best 22 player through no fault of the club due to an AFL/ASADA rule about tampering with urine samples and not being under the influence of weed on match days. We would have rightfully been laughed out the door if we tried.

End of the day Carlton have no standing here to demand compensation. It will either be an additional late pick in the national draft to replenish the list spot or it might be like the conditional supplementary picks Essendon received when they had to replace the banned 34 for a season.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Did lol but to be fair, I can see some Carlton supporters arguing that since the AFL were the ones to establish the mandate then it is hardly fair to be left high and dry losing a best-22 player through no fault of the club

Although officially he 'retired' so I don't know what to make of that

Unfortunately (fortunately?) it's not the AFL making the mandate. They are outlining the league parameters - but they are just in line with government mandates.

It's why Vic based players need to be fully vaccinated by 25th of this month, but WA based players have until January.
 
Unfortunately (fortunately?) it's not the AFL making the mandate. They are outlining the league parameters - but they are just in line with government mandates.

It's why Vic based players need to be fully vaccinated by 25th of this month, but WA based players have until January.

Fair enough. Sorry I am not that well informed on this. I guess it's just bad luck for Carlton then at the end of the day.
 
By that logic we should have hit up the AFL for compensation for losing Rioli for 2 years. We lost a best 22 player through no fault of the club due to an AFL/ASADA rule about tampering with urine samples and not being under the influence of weed on match days. We would have rightfully been laughed out the door if we tried.

End of the day Carlton have no standing here to demand compensation. It will either be an additional late pick in the national draft to replenish the list spot or it might be like the conditional supplementary picks Essendon received when they had to replace the banned 34 for a season.

I get it but I would contend there is a difference between breaking long-established drug rules/protocols and something which is a new matter altogether (presumably not written into contracts?, not actually cheating etc)

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should be given anything either but I don't think it is entirely laughable to at least ask.
 
I get it but I would contend there is a difference between breaking long-established drug rules/protocols and something which is a new matter altogether (presumably not written into contracts?, not actually cheating etc)

AFL would have done the due diligence on this one before coming up with the mandates to make sure they were covered legally.

My guess is there would be a catch all clause in players contracts about meeting certain requirements to be in a state that's deemed 'fit for work' already.
 
I don't see how there can be any thought about a concession for a club because a bloke retires early. I mean he hasn't even said it is due to the vaccine mandate (even though we all know that's the case). Its no different to Tom Swift deciding to pull the pin early to change career paths- it sucks for the club but s**t happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top