Richmond to take Cousins

[Silvagnis]

No, the Richmond Football Club are seeking to have the rule amended.

Just so you can receive the salary cap benefit of paying Polak outside the cap and have another pick in the PSD to draft Cousins AND Gourdis.

Wallace did state that they want to give Polak motivation to complete his recovery by keeping him on the list.

Why the change of heart?

You're compromising the draft if the AFL allows Richmond to move Polak onto the rookie list.

If you have the cap space like you claim, then ask for special permission to delist Polak and re-draft Polak as a rookie.

Putting Polak on the LTI puts less pressure on Polak.

I guess Richmond are concerned about injury payments blowing out their cap.

That might explain why they want to put Polak on their rookie list when his contract won't count.

Tigers fans won't acknowledge they're just using Polak's injury to bend the rules and get an advantage over other clubs in the PSD.

The Tigers are playing the sympathy card to get another player on their senior list.

Polak can still play in the second half of this year if he is placed on the mature rookie list and fit to play.

A fair result is Richmond being allowed to elevate a rookie at any time during the year if the doctors say Polak isn't capable of playing.

LTI or nothing.

Anything else goes against the draft and salary cap which is supposed to ensure we have an even competition.

It's the Carlton Football Club who go outside of the rules.

What does it have to do with Carlton?

Stick to the topic and stop deflecting.

 

[_RT_]

Like I said. Careless. Everyone knows to look again even if traffic has passed. That you can argue that getting hit by a tram is in no way his own fault is absolutely laughable. I am pretty sure clubs expect their players to take the utmost care not to injure themselves in any life activity. But accidents happen. He was rushing and made a almost fatal error, whichever way you look at it, it is noone but his own fault. Perhaps he should have had the taxi pull into his driveway.

Blindsided by a tram? are you listening to yourself? Trams go in a straight line. you would have to be stupid not to see them.

Polak was crossing the road around 11pm, he saw the first tram and allowed it to pass, then proceeds to cross the tracks thinking they were clear, as he is crossing with another player, Cleve Hughes, they catch sight of the second tram which has come from the opposite direction to the first tram, which could quite easily block them from seeing the second tram. If you think about it you'll understand what I mean when I say that.

Hughes manages to get out the way, but Polak is collected by the tram, was hit in the head by the mirror IIRC.

I've never said Polak wasn't at fault, my point is he didn't choose to get hit by the tram. What Polak did do was chose to cross the tracks when he thought it was safe and despite avoiding the first tram you still think that he acted carelessly. Using the explanation above of how events were reported to have happened by those that were witnessed to the incident, would you like to explain exactly how you can say Polak was careless.

 

[Vader]

Actually there is no Cap pressure that is behind this issue. It was reported today that we had enough room in our cap during the trade period that we could have made a play for someone like Kerr if we wanted to, who would be on signifigant money. We don't need to move Polak to the rookie list to afford to take Cousins if we chose to do that.

Fair enough. I thought the Tigers would have been too professional to let salary cap problems lead to this sort of situation.

 

[_RT_]

Just so you can receive the salary cap benefit of paying Polak outside the cap and have another pick in the PSD to draft Cousins AND Gourdis.

It was reported today that we have plenty of cap room

Wallace did state that they want to give Polak motivation to complete his recovery by keeping him on the list.

They will be keeping him on as part of the club, he will still be able to train with his mates. Still provides the motivation to continue with his recovery.

Why the change of heart?

Perhaps Polak was feeling that he had to make a speedy recovery because he is a senior listed player.

You're compromising the draft if the AFL allows Richmond to move Polak onto the rookie list.

We're not compromising anything, the AFL is, if you have a problem with it direct your anger at the AFL not Richmond. All we've done is ask a question of the AFL.

If you have the cap space like you claim, then ask for special permission to delist Polak and re-draft Polak as a rookie.

Isn't that effectively what we are doing?

Putting Polak on the LTI puts less pressure on Polak.

No it doesn't, if Polak feels he has to push himself to get better quickly because he is a senior listed player then putting him on the LTI doesn't remove that pressure.

I guess Richmond are concerned about injury payments blowing out their cap.

That might explain why they want to put Polak on their rookie list when his contract won't count.

As mentioned above, no they are not.

Tigers fans won't acknowledge they're just using Polak's injury to bend the rules and get an advantage over other clubs in the PSD.

We're not using Polak's injury to bend the rules, we're using an loophole in the AFL rules to bend the rules. As mentioned above, we've asked a question of the AFL, it is up to them what they want to do. If they grant our application then direct your abuse towards them not us.

The Tigers are playing the sympathy card to get another player on their senior list.

I don't recall the club making an emotional appeal, I do recall them making an application though.

Polak can still play in the second half of this year if he is placed on the mature rookie list and fit to play.

The odds are though that he wont be fit enough to play next year.

A fair result is Richmond being allowed to elevate a rookie at any time during the year if the doctors say Polak isn't capable of playing.

That maybe exactly what the AFL decides to do. Guess we'll have to wait until Monday to find out.

LTI or nothing.

Again its the AFL's decision, not yours.

Anything else goes against the draft and salary cap which is supposed to ensure we have an even competition.

Oh the irony.

What does it have to do with Carlton?

Nothing so I don't know why their fans are so opposed to it.

Stick to the topic and stop deflecting.

You have to slip the boot into Carlton though when one of their fans is taking the moral high ground about clubs bending/breaking the rules.

 

[Black&White]

I would like to know why Richmond did not take Cousins with their last pick in the National draft. They passed on this pick, they could have taken Cousins then..They are rorting the system with their request to the AFL.
Polack should be on the long term injury list.He is no more a rookie than me!!
There is absolutely no excuse or reason for them not to have taken him with their last pick in the ND!!!They sure had enough time to weigh up all the issues..

 

[Rich01]

LTI or nothing.

Anything else goes against the draft and salary cap which is supposed to ensure we have an even competition.

That's opinion not a statement. You are not the AFL Commission.

As stated several times before, Richmond is looking for a full complement of players on their senior list - as Carlton will do when it takes its PSD selection on Tuesday. It currently cannot do so within the rules so is asking for an exemption.

I don't know why other opposition supporters are so up in arms about this.

It's common knowledge that David Gourdis is the man they will pick up with this pick. If other clubs wanted him so badly, perhaps they should have looked with a late pick in the National Draft.

Rumour is that Fremantle have commited to pick him up with their first rookie pick hence their opposition to Richmond's request.

 

[Shere Khan]

It's common knowledge that David Gourdis is the man they will pick up with this pick. If other clubs wanted him so badly, perhaps they should have looked with a late pick in the National Draft.

I thought it was Klemke. Oh, and no club could pick dave up in the ND because Dave didn't nominate for the ND.

 

[Rich01]

I thought it was Klemke. Oh, and no club could pick dave up in the ND because Dave didn't nominate for the ND.

You are probably right. I haven't been following it that closely. However, I believe the Tigers will pick up Gourdis in the PSD.

 

[statsman74]

That's opinion not a statement. You are not the AFL Commission.

As stated several times before, Richmond is looking for a full complement of players on their senior list - as Carlton will do when it takes its PSD selection on Tuesday. It currently cannot do so within the rules so is asking for an exemption.

I don't know why other opposition supporters are so up in arms about this.

It's common knowledge that David Gourdis is the man they will pick up with this pick. If other clubs wanted him so badly, perhaps they should have looked with a late pick in the National Draft.

Rumour is that Fremantle have commited to pick him up with their first rookie pick hence their opposition to Richmond's request.

You've answered your own bewildement.

Other clubs are "up in arms" because Richmond are attempting to have the rules changed so that they can pick up a player (for example, Gourdis) that they otherwise would not be able to get because Freo (using your example) pick before them in the rookie draft.

I dont think anyone is unsympathetic to Polaks plight. I actually have a good friend who I'm catching up with on Sunday who is close makes with him, and I hope he can give me some good news when I ask about him.

But best wishes aside, this doesnt mean a club can have the rules changed to its own advantage. This isnt like the Rama example, where one player was contracted and one wasnt.

Richmond have had 3 chances to act on Polak, and havent. He was training last week, so in the absence of a doctor confirming his dramatic reversal of fortunes since then, its hard to imagine that the Tigers couldnt have done this properly and within the rules without needing the rules to be changed.

People mistake this as a Cousins issue, when it isnt. If Richmond desperately want Cousins, they can have him with Pick 6. This is actually a Gourdis (or wheoever) issue - because it seems that Richmond know that if they take Cousins at pick 6, Gourdis will be gone before they get a chance to rookie list him.

Now the AFL is in an odd spot. It has made the road difficult for Cousins to come back, which has scared everyone off and suddenly they are the Cousins Grinch. So now they are put in a position where they are being asked for a sympathetic touch to allow a rule change to allow Richmond the extra pick to take him.

My guess is that the AFL will allow Richmond the extra pick, and whoever was planning on taking Gourdis in the rookie draft gets screwed,

The ideal situation is that Polak gets LTI'd, then Richmond promote someone and there is no need for the claim for the extra pick. That clearly isnt what Richmond want, so given that, what I would like to see is what someone else at BF suggested - dont give them the extra pick in the preseason draft, but give them an extra pick at the end of the rookie draft. That way they can still take Cousins at Pick 6 if that is what they want, and can still have an extra pick as compassion for the Polak situaiton - but not before other clubs can pick first.

 

[Big Blow Hard]

Are you trying to argue that both are the same under negligence?
RT is correct:

The surfer, by undertaking the activity of surfing is exposed to an INHERENT RISK, that they may be injured. There is no way around this risk (unless you can control the water etc etc), its all down to the surfers skill and knowledge of what they are doing. They are basically signing up to it and KNOW the risk that they may be hurt/killed. It even says it in the contract they sign, eg "BY SIGNING THIS YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SURFING IS A SPORT WITH ITS OWN RISKS THAT CANOT BE CONTROLLED THUS WE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR INJURIES OF AN INHERENT NATURE etc etc" Does a surfer sue the event organiser's every time they get hurt surfing? or suffer an economic loss by breaking a board or anything?

So is what you are trying to say that, by crossing the road Polak was also exposed to an inherent risk? (remembering the injury didn't occur during a sporting accident with inherent risks) A risk that could not be stopped? Everyone knows of course, we must be cautious when we cross the road, but there are things in place such as speed limit signs, warning signs etc to try and limit the risk and increase saftey of both drivers and pedestrians. The driver owes a duty of care to drive safely with regards to other drivers and pedestrians, and vice versa for the pedestrian. So if someone was to cross the road, be hit by a vehicle, no-one is liable because it was an inherent risk of crossing the road and they should have known better?

OF COURSE NOT!!! You sue the balls of the person who hit you / the local council etc if it was their fault. Even if you were partially to blame (i do not doubt that Polak was partially responsible for the accident as well), its contributory negligence by both parties. EVEN IF he had been drinking, high on smack, baked on the laffy taffy, it still may be negligence (there are cases on this).

They are two separate cases, like it or not.

Thats complete crap. Trams and trains travel in designated, fixed patterns and paths. If someone steps in front of either, particularly while crossing the tracks in an illegal manner, ther is no liability on the tram company or driver whatsoever. Just a heap of suffering for the driver who has taken a life or severely injured someone through no controllable fault of his own. Being hit by a car is completely different as there are many more variables and possibilities that the driver could be at fault. Speed, Indication, Trajectory, alcohol, swerving, acceleration. As for the driver owing a duty of care to pedestrians. In this case where Polak supposedly did not see the second tram. I would strongly argue that the second tram driver had even less chance of seeing Polak step out from behind a much larger, solid tram, and there was no way in hell he could react in time or prevent it.
Though it is surely an accident, it is an accident of Polak and Hughes causing through their carelessness. Difference is, Hughes did see the second tram and got out of the way. It would take a hell of a lawyer to prove otherwise and that is probably why Polak has not tried to sue as yet.

Oh, and only competing surfers sign contracts. Not for example Joe Bloggs who plays for an AFL club who goes out for a casual surf. If he copped a head injury in a surfing accident and was out for the year, it would be bad luck and stiff shit son. Same for any accident. I think it was David Spriggs who broke his leg or knee jumping of a wall at the beach, it arguably curtailed his career but bad luck.

 

[Linda Crescent]

Its richmond's choice to take him, they take the risk but ultimately it comes back to the player. If they want to gamble good on them, good luck, hope it works out.

With regard to the extra pick however, don't agree, Polak is on your list, has a contract, richmond have not delisted him and paid him out on the basis that his career is over, which it obviously is not, RFC do not run a charity.

The AFL have always wanted Ben to be playing again, they are in this up to their necks, all there other hopes have opted not to take the risk, apparently they have done their homework. Sheedy is merely an afl tool, as to a certain extent is richmond.

They will receive the concession, both ben and gourdis(?) will be at the tigers next year, Courtesy of the AFL and its feel good department. It is a farce really, but all the best to the tigers

Good words. I reckon the only thing better for the AFL would be that Cousins is picked up by Sydney. That Club needs some serious momentum right now (lets call it exposure). There's not an inch of spin or mileage left in many of their players including and importantly Barry Hall.

Do I think Richmond should 'recruit' Ben Cousins - no!

 

[TOA.]

If the commission allow Polak onto the mature age rookie list then where will it end?

One would have thought it be more practical to put a player with an injury list and be able promote a rookie. Oh wait ...



So what is the purpose of the LTI list if clubs can dump someone onto a mature age rookie list ? Maybe we should make another LTI list for players who get more random injuries.

 

[UpTheGuts]

Bingo! New major sponsor!!!

Bad boys = good marketing.....

Federer = Yawn

Agassi/ McEnroe = heaven

 

[incog43]

If the commission allow Polak onto the mature age rookie list then where will it end?

One would have thought it be more practical to put a player with an injury list and be able promote a rookie. Oh wait ...



So what is the purpose of the LTI list if clubs can dump someone onto a mature age rookie list ? Maybe we should make another LTI list for players who get more random injuries.

The only purpose to all of this is for the AFL to get ben back on the park, thats what they have always wanted. Everyone passed on ben, for whatever reason...lets just call this a bribe so the tigers will take him. Don't blame the tigers, take every advantage you can get..start looking at the afl and its agenda.."BEN MUST PLAY"

 

[DynamoUltra]

Anyone who thinks the accident has caused Polak to lose peripheral vision has clearly forgotten he got hit by a tram he didn't see in the first place.

The 15 other clubs should argue he had no peripheral vision to begin with.

 

[Big Blow Hard]

Anyone who thinks the accident has caused Polak to lose peripheral vision has clearly forgotten he got hit by a tram he didn't see in the first place.

The 15 other clubs should argue he had no peripheral vision to begin with.

Nice.

 

[Black&White]

I remember a few weeks back, Hawthorn wanted to put a player on their list from SA. He was too late nominating for the ND, but the Hawks asked for special dispensation, and they were refused by the AFL. The AFL were right to do so, and they didn't make any allowances for this player. Why should they make a special allowance for Richmond.. And IF I remember correctly, didn't the bombers replace Rama with a ROOKIE? Totally different situation with Cousins..They are rorting the system,and I am still waiting for an answer as to why Richmond didn't take Cousins as their last pick in the ND???? No excuse for not doing it then. They should be refused their request...If you break rules for any player, then you should break them for ALL players,regardless of the situation, even the Hawks, although they were late in their request. And no matter what you think, Rama's illness was NOT self inflicted.Cancer is a beast, I know, I lost my spouse to it..If I run in front of a car or tram etc it's MY fault, for being so dam careless, and not watching where I was going..I feel for the tram driver, he has to live with this the rest of his life,because of someone's carelessness..like it or not, that's what it is!!

 

[sherrinorburley]

Bingo! New major sponsor!!!

Bad boys = good marketing.....

Federer = Yawn

Agassi/ McEnroe = heaven

Hahahaha!! Go Tigers!!

lol hawks Carlton Collingwood St Kilda Brisbane North Melbourne

 

[Rich01]

You've answered your own bewildement.

Other clubs are "up in arms" because Richmond are attempting to have the rules changed so that they can pick up a player (for example, Gourdis) that they otherwise would not be able to get because Freo (using your example) pick before them in the rookie draft.

People mistake this as a Cousins issue, when it isnt. If Richmond desperately want Cousins, they can have him with Pick 6. This is actually a Gourdis (or wheoever) issue - because it seems that Richmond know that if they take Cousins at pick 6, Gourdis will be gone before they get a chance to rookie list him.

My guess is that the AFL will allow Richmond the extra pick, and whoever was planning on taking Gourdis in the rookie draft gets screwed,

The ideal situation is that Polak gets LTI'd, then Richmond promote someone and there is no need for the claim for the extra pick. That clearly isnt what Richmond want, so given that, what I would like to see is what someone else at BF suggested - dont give them the extra pick in the preseason draft, but give them an extra pick at the end of the rookie draft. That way they can still take Cousins at Pick 6 if that is what they want, and can still have an extra pick as compassion for the Polak situaiton - but not before other clubs can pick first.

All good points. And it's what I expect the AFL to do as well. However, keep in mind that Polak will NEVER play again. The harsh but BY THE RULES option Richmond could have taken was to pay Polak out at the end of 2008 ($300k) and cut him loose. What we are effectively asking for is to keep a person on our rookie list for 2 years that will never play again. The dollars will be paid our regardless. Every club would have chosen this option if they were in this situation.