Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Sack Pendles (and De Goey!)

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:04 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

K wrote:
Well, let's not say maim, but break something. That would be inconvenient but not crippling to most workplace jobs. But not so for a sporting job.

I note that some employers do run background checks and drug tests on normal employees. Does drink-driving get you sacked or suspended from, say, the police force?

I think my bigger reason for not really being persuaded by your and David's objections is that I see it as just part of the business agreement. If an employer offered me more money (on top of an already very healthy base) and in return imposed the sorts of restrictions placed on these kids, I'd accept without hesitation. The AFLPA negotiated all of this stuff with the AFL.


I don’t think your last point works, because it is not a competitive market. You may go to another employer. The AFL is the industry. My objection, and Maybe David’s, is that these types of restrictions are prerequisite to the players plying their trade professionally at all

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:10 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

he can go to another employer, Coles always need trolley collectors or bathroom cleaners. maybe he could work on a brewery production line.

nothing wrong with those jobs, but im betting they dont pay 6 figures.

_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:15 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwump wrote:
K wrote:
...
I think my bigger reason for not really being persuaded by your and David's objections is that I see it as just part of the business agreement. If an employer offered me more money (on top of an already very healthy base) and in return imposed the sorts of restrictions placed on these kids, I'd accept without hesitation. The AFLPA negotiated all of this stuff with the AFL.


I don’t think your last point works, because it is not a competitive market. You may go to another employer. The AFL is the industry. My objection, and Maybe David’s, is that these types of restrictions are prerequisite to the players plying their trade professionally at all


Well, a monopoly is a potential problem. But I think your and David's concerns assume that the AFLPA is powerless. I'm assuming that's not the case. They have made veiled and unveiled threats in the past about strike action, for instance.

And certainly there are many clubs, some more permissive than others.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:59 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

But how do you know what “more” money is when there is no free market to set a benchmark for the job without the restriction ??

In any event, I just don’t think it is healthy or consistent with ordinary liberty for an employer to aim to control what happens outside the workplace, unless it bears on job performance in a very direct way (eg being drunk or stoned or otherwise unfit for work).

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:18 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I think there's continual jousting between the AFL and the AFLPA about how much the players get paid (concretely, what percentage of the AFL revenue should go to the players). I think in these negotiations the AFLPA really does say, "We want it raised from x% of the revenue to y%." They will then quote figures from another sport where it's z% of the revenue, provided z is large and thus suits their argument. The AFL pushes back, of course, so they're playing this legal game. "According to [name of some useless management consultant company], your members' behaviour off-field is diminishing our revenue by w%," the AFL says. So in the end they agree to a modest increase in the slice of the pie the players get, in return for a modest increase in control over the players' off-field behaviour.
And, consequently, a player gets $200k a year, and the club can fine him $5k for drink-driving.

As it's said in The Godfather (surely David likes those movies!), it's not personal, no hard feelings, it's just business.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:33 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

its going to cost him a lot more than that! cant remember the last time i said this but Well Done Collingwood, you got this 100% right!

C'mon kid show us what your made of. Im excited!

_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:42 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

$5k is the max for a first offence.
Now, we know it's $10k for a repeat offence.
And we know how in effect to bypass such limits.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:10 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I do think the onus is on the AFLPA (and unions in general) to make this case, but the trouble is that this encroachment into employees’ outside lives is not currently considered by many as a workplace rights issue (though I think that’s slowly beginning to change). I’m sure there are elements within the AFLPA who want to address this, but that it’s just seen as being in the too-hard-basket for now. Hopefully other industries will lead the way and start to push back, paving the way for others to follow.

Otherwise, I can’t put it better than this:

Mugwump wrote:
The link between sponsor’s wishes and a worker’s rights as a private citizen is not one of subordination.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:12 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qvpcfYFHcw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFqgRFal35A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AceKJoL3QaM



"Tom, can you get me off the hook, for old times' sake?"

"Can't do it, Sally."


Last edited by K on Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:17 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

think positive wrote:
he can go to another employer, Coles always need trolley collectors or bathroom cleaners. maybe he could work on a brewery production line.

nothing wrong with those jobs, but im betting they dont pay 6 figures.


The other option, of course, is to go and play Gaelic football. I'm confident he has what it takes to be a very good player there. And they probably have fewer restrictions on players' lifestyles (though I don't really know). But there are good reasons why the flow of players is in only one direction. Funny that, huh? Maybe he should have a word to Marty Clarke et al.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:51 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
I do think the onus is on the AFLPA (and unions in general) to make this case, but the trouble is that this encroachment into employees’ outside lives is not currently considered by many as a workplace rights issue (though I think that’s slowly beginning to change).
...


David, I fear you will freak out when you see what restrictions are imposed in professional sports overseas. (See links & quotes in the relevant thread in the main forum.)
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:16 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ I’m well aware it’s a global issue. Still, the fact that something is the status quo doesn’t mean it’s right or that it can’t change.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:41 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Why isn't it right, though? This lad likely "earns" nearly 4 times the average Australian household income and it is fair to say that he's done little to justify that, so far. Having that sort of relatively unusual remuneration comes at a cost - people reasonably expect the recipient to do relatively unusual things for it.

I get paid much better than JDG. If I were to turn up to court drunk or to give bad advice because I hadn't worked hard enough on someone's problem, I would lose the gig. That's as it should be - the world doesn't owe me a living. It doesn't owe him one, either. If he wants to be paid a relatively high income as an elite professional sportsperson, it's incumbent upon him to do the things that will position him to succeed.

At the absolute minimum, it's incumbent upon JDG to avoid doing things that reduce the prospect that he may ever achieve his sporting potential. What might be in one's "spare time" as a telephone call-centre operative is not necessarily in one's "spare time" as a would-be elite professional athlete. I don't think that it's a denial of worker's rights to draw the line on people doing things that are destructive of their potential productive output when their remuneration assumes that their output is required to be delivered at an unusually high standard.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:22 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd agree 100% if his drinking was getting in the way of his training or match-day performance. That would, indeed, be equivalent to you turning up to court drunk or not being able to do the work expected. But I don't see evidence of that actually being the case; what De Goey is accused of is doing other things that supposedly make his club look bad by association, something that I see as being dependent on the myth that football players ought to be shining lights in the community and that brands ought to be considered tarnished by their association with imperfect individuals. Needless to say, I see that as a much deeper issue than what happens to De Goey's football career, because I think it affects the broader public conception of work–life separation and the powers and responsibilities of employers – ultimately, I don't see it as being the employer's responsibility or right to sanction an employee for something that the legal system can adequately deal with.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:19 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

No, while the club's reputation may be part of the issue, it's not the only issue. I disagree with this belief that it's not affecting his training or performance or that of the team.

His teammates seem aggrieved, some of them to an extent I've never witnessed previously in their decade-long careers. I don't think this punishment is just something imposed by the suits above, with no input from the players and no support from the players. His behaviour is therefore having a strongly negative effect on the team.

On an individual level, there is no way that does not affect his training and performance. What night exactly was it? Saturday night? I assume there was no training the next day, but it still undermines his performance. And is he fully recovered from the operation? If not, it undermined the recovery as well. I don't know why so many think otherwise. That's not how athletic performance works.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 4 of 7   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group