SA Footy

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 2:30 pm**

He was already employed by the boss, so just part of an existing employee/employer relationship to have discussions about all manner of work related stuff. Anyway, he's a grass roots boy who loves our "country club" kind of community. And we love him too

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 2:36 pm**

BigB wrote:He was already employed by the boss, so just part of an existing employee/employer relationship to have discussions about all manner of work related stuff. Anyway, he's a grass roots boy who loves our "country club" kind of community. And we love him too

Good on him/Unley for it too. Only singled him out because of the speech last night. This practice would be happening everywhere and with the salary cap will become more widespread. Just highlights what (in my view) is a potentially unfair aspect of the salary cap, as some clubs (let's say Uni/SPOC/PAOC etc.) are (probably) in a better position to offer these salary cap exempt benefits than others (i.e Smithfield, Mitchell Park, West Croydon).

Seems a bit counter-intuitive to the "level playing field" theory.

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 3:11 pm**

I guess that means any sponsor can flick a few bucks to a player and say he is employed by said sponsor

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 3:12 pm**

I tend to agree, but there are plenty of tradesman and what not at those clubs with traditionally lower socio-economic demographics.

So at Unley it might be that the Junior Lawyer makes Partner, at Mitchell Park it might be that the bricky gets the sub division.

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 3:18 pm**

morell wrote:I tend to agree, but there are plenty of tradesman and what not at those clubs with traditionally lower socio-economic demographics.

So at Unley it might be that the Junior Lawyer makes Partner, at Mitchell Park it might be that the bricky gets the sub division.

I was loathe to name individual clubs because it in itself is terribly classist and I have no idea of the inner workings of really any club.

I don't understand why the clause stating "non football club employment income" won't be assessed as to whether it is market value (or whatever the specific wording is).

If it were me I would have removed that clause knowing full well that the CFB/League lack the resources and expertise (and arguably legal right) to inspect independent employment agreements for market value. Leave a bit of mystery there with the attempt to scare clubs away from any funny business (given that the Salary Cap's strongest feature is the deterrent effect).

Effectively the insertion of that clause has just legitimized sponsors paying players directly rather than having the Club as the middleman.

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:35 pm**

morell wrote:I tend to agree, but there are plenty of tradesman and what not at those clubs with traditionally lower socio-economic demographics.

So at Unley it might be that the Junior Lawyer makes Partner, at Mitchell Park it might be that the bricky gets the sub division.

I love that Unley is stereotyped as the team full of lawyers! @Jetters.... Thoughts?

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:15 pm**

jo172 wrote:
morell wrote:I tend to agree, but there are plenty of tradesman and what not at those clubs with traditionally lower socio-economic demographics.

So at Unley it might be that the Junior Lawyer makes Partner, at Mitchell Park it might be that the bricky gets the sub division.

I was loathe to name individual clubs because it in itself is terribly classist and I have no idea of the inner workings of really any club.

I don't understand why the clause stating "non football club employment income" won't be assessed as to whether it is market value (or whatever the specific wording is).

If it were me I would have removed that clause knowing full well that the CFB/League lack the resources and expertise (and arguably legal right) to inspect independent employment agreements for market value. Leave a bit of mystery there with the attempt to scare clubs away from any funny business (given that the Salary Cap's strongest feature is the deterrent effect).

Effectively the insertion of that clause has just legitimized sponsors paying players directly rather than having the Club as the middleman.[/quot]

I don't think that you could ever stop "contra" dealings. My thoughts on attacking the bloated pay ments to players is to have the "marquee " players but limit the number,the team makeup should be "X" amount of players that are indigenous to the club. this would also produce an avenue for juniors to be able to progress through the ranks without the high expectation of exorbitant payments. This is just a thought for possible discussion.

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:45 pm**

Burras wrote:
morell wrote:I tend to agree, but there are plenty of tradesman and what not at those clubs with traditionally lower socio-economic demographics.

So at Unley it might be that the Junior Lawyer makes Partner, at Mitchell Park it might be that the bricky gets the sub division.

I love that Unley is stereotyped as the team full of lawyers! @Jetters.... Thoughts?

Inner city bogans more like it

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 6:02 pm**

Getting a bloke a job to play at your club has been around for years and it will always be around employers who are aligned within a club can offer blokes a job surely chris judd did it why cant amature players!

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:25 pm**

heater31 wrote:
Burras wrote:
morell wrote:I tend to agree, but there are plenty of tradesman and what not at those clubs with traditionally lower socio-economic demographics.

So at Unley it might be that the Junior Lawyer makes Partner, at Mitchell Park it might be that the bricky gets the sub division.

I love that Unley is stereotyped as the team full of lawyers! @Jetters.... Thoughts?

Inner city bogans more like it

Pretty sure we got rid of them all in a clean out last year. I'll do a quick check around the club tonight, PAC bound to have left a couple behind!

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 10:00 pm**

laser wrote:
heater31 wrote:
Burras wrote:
morell wrote:I tend to agree, but there are plenty of tradesman and what not at those clubs with traditionally lower socio-economic demographics.

So at Unley it might be that the Junior Lawyer makes Partner, at Mitchell Park it might be that the bricky gets the sub division.

I love that Unley is stereotyped as the team full of lawyers! @Jetters.... Thoughts?

Inner city bogans more like it

Pretty sure we got rid of them all in a clean out last year. I'll do a quick check around the club tonight, PAC bound to have left a couple behind!

We have far too many

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 11:25 pm**

laser wrote:
heater31 wrote:
Burras wrote:
morell wrote:I tend to agree, but there are plenty of tradesman and what not at those clubs with traditionally lower socio-economic demographics.

So at Unley it might be that the Junior Lawyer makes Partner, at Mitchell Park it might be that the bricky gets the sub division.

I love that Unley is stereotyped as the team full of lawyers! @Jetters.... Thoughts?

Inner city bogans more like it

Pretty sure we got rid of them all in a clean out last year. I'll do a quick check around the club tonight, PAC bound to have left a couple behind!

Not sure one of your balcony sponsors would be pleased

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 11:45 pm**

Burras wrote:
morell wrote:I tend to agree, but there are plenty of tradesman and what not at those clubs with traditionally lower socio-economic demographics.

So at Unley it might be that the Junior Lawyer makes Partner, at Mitchell Park it might be that the bricky gets the sub division.

I love that Unley is stereotyped as the team full of lawyers! @Jetters.... Thoughts?

Get **** @Burras, you're distracting me from my media law assignment.

I think the manual labour jobs are more valuable. You are likely to entice a new player to a footy club with an apprenticeship/labouring/tradie work, you're not about to go making people firm partners on the basis of club loyalty!

Either way, isn't this exactly what we want clubs doing!? Instead of taking $$ from the clubs, facilities, juniors etc to attract recruits, use other club resources. $$ gets invested back into the club and the player gets probably a more meaningful outcome.

Posted: **Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:59 pm**

Jetters wrote:
Burras wrote:
morell wrote:I tend to agree, but there are plenty of tradesman and what not at those clubs with traditionally lower socio-economic demographics.

So at Unley it might be that the Junior Lawyer makes Partner, at Mitchell Park it might be that the bricky gets the sub division.

I love that Unley is stereotyped as the team full of lawyers! @Jetters.... Thoughts?

Get **** @Burras, you're distracting me from my media law assignment.

I think the manual labour jobs are more valuable. You are likely to entice a new player to a footy club with an apprenticeship/labouring/tradie work, you're not about to go making people firm partners on the basis of club loyalty!

Either way, isn't this exactly what we want clubs doing!? Instead of taking $$ from the clubs, facilities, juniors etc to attract recruits, use other club resources. $$ gets invested back into the club and the player gets probably a more meaningful outcome.

I think all the lawyers are at Kilburn.

While I agree to some extent that manual labor jobs would be offered more often and easier to provide with less qualifications/experience required, I know a lot of uni graduates who would change clubs if they were offered a graduate position. It is quite a competitive graduate market in Adelaide - for graduate lawyers especially ;-)

Posted: **Fri Sep 11, 2015 3:01 pm**

BigB wrote:Fantastic - you can email me if easier... comms@unleyjets.com.au

Much appreciated.

PS - anyone video the speech????

I think one of his mates from Port District did.

Whopper is quite a humorous lad and well worth a follow on facebook for some of his statuses

Posted: **Fri Sep 11, 2015 3:05 pm**

G_Leonard wrote:I think all the lawyers are at Kilburn.

Yeah, they'll give a law degree to anyone nowdays

Posted: **Fri Sep 11, 2015 4:15 pm**

G_Leonard wrote:
Jetters wrote:
Burras wrote:
morell wrote:I tend to agree, but there are plenty of tradesman and what not at those clubs with traditionally lower socio-economic demographics.

So at Unley it might be that the Junior Lawyer makes Partner, at Mitchell Park it might be that the bricky gets the sub division.

I love that Unley is stereotyped as the team full of lawyers! @Jetters.... Thoughts?

Get **** @Burras, you're distracting me from my media law assignment.

I think the manual labour jobs are more valuable. You are likely to entice a new player to a footy club with an apprenticeship/labouring/tradie work, you're not about to go making people firm partners on the basis of club loyalty!

Either way, isn't this exactly what we want clubs doing!? Instead of taking $$ from the clubs, facilities, juniors etc to attract recruits, use other club resources. $$ gets invested back into the club and the player gets probably a more meaningful outcome.

I think all the lawyers are at Kilburn.

While I agree to some extent that manual labor jobs would be offered more often and easier to provide with less qualifications/experience required, I know a lot of uni graduates who would change clubs if they were offered a graduate position. It is quite a competitive graduate market in Adelaide - for graduate lawyers especially ;-)

Yeah correct, my "making Partner at a law firm" jibe was hyperbole, but I know of a few Adelaide Uni players that go there because of the connections they can make, and a couple more at other clubs that are there because their boss is a club stalwart.

As you mention, the market is that tight for the traditional white collar jobs in Adelaide. Our Engineering Grad said 7 students (out of hundreds) from his graduating class got a job in Adelaide within 12 months...

Posted: **Fri Sep 11, 2015 7:12 pm**

The best lawyer is at Kilburn

Posted: **Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:13 am**

The Big Shrek wrote:The best lawyers market is at Kilburn

Posted: **Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:19 am**

I strongly disagree with that Jimmy.

No one pays their bills at Kilburn!

SA Footy

Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015

Re: Ch9 AFL Division 2 - 2015