SA Footy

Good suggestion by the Players association

THE AFL Players Association is pushing for clubs to commit a rookie list position to draftees they cut after only one season.

The association believes clubs should honour the spirit of the mandatory two-year contracts offered to teenage prospects by ensuring they are kept in the system for at least that long.

Essendon this week delisted first-year defender Austin Lucy, chosen at No. 66 in last year's national draft, after Adelaide earlier cut Alan Obst, the 48th selection last November.

Association operations manager Matt Finnis said the delistings were "not ideal", since the teenagers had been selected on the understanding they had two years to prove their worth.

I reckon they should have to commit to the 2 years on the senior list - they drafted them and gave them 2 year contracts, stick to it and give the lads a chance

Dutchy wrote:I reckon they should have to commit to the 2 years on the senior list - they drafted them and gave them 2 year contracts, stick to it and give the lads a chance

Yes this true - but with the senior lists being so tight they need to look at this being restructured or this will continue to happen !!!

Not sure why football should be different to any other place of employment ... If you want someone out and they're contracted then let them go but be prepared to honour the remuneration ... If you don't see a player as part of your plans then I don't see a problem with letting them go.

Constance_Perm wrote:Not sure why football should be different to any other place of employment ... If you want someone out and they're contracted then let them go but be prepared to honour the remuneration ... If you don't see a player as part of your plans then I don't see a problem with letting them go.

So if your given a 2 year contract of employment and know you have a steep learning curve and it will take 2 years to become competent in your trade and you are told you have 2 years to prove yourself, you would be pretty dirty that after 12 months they come to you and let you go knowing that the skills you would have built up over the coming 12 months will enhance future earnings?

all jobs are different and need to be assessed individually but in AFL footy you need more than 12 months to develop

Dutchy wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:Not sure why football should be different to any other place of employment ... If you want someone out and they're contracted then let them go but be prepared to honour the remuneration ... If you don't see a player as part of your plans then I don't see a problem with letting them go.

So if your given a 2 year contract of employment and know you have a steep learning curve and it will take 2 years to become competent in your trade and you are told you have 2 years to prove yourself, you would be pretty dirty that after 12 months they come to you and let you go knowing that the skills you would have built up over the coming 12 months will enhance future earnings?

all jobs are different and need to be assessed individually but in AFL footy you need more than 12 months to develop

Sorry mate but I don't really see the difference with this or any other job .. The people who make the decisions are supposed to be experts in their field and whilst they might make the odd wrong call they generally get it right ... At the end of the day business is business

so you wouldnt be dirty if it was your son? told he has 2 years and gets 12 months?

I understand what you mean about business, but think this is different

Dutchy wrote:so you wouldnt be dirty if it was your son? told he has 2 years and gets 12 months?

I understand what you mean about business, but think this is different

Yeah I see where you are coming from, but if you thought a friend or family member was unfairly cut from any place of employment you would be dirty.

As we've seen this week there are North Adelaide supporters upset over the Hargraves issue because he is a mate, but unfortunately tough decisions are part and parcel of any business.

Constance_Perm

I hear your point, but in reality, even in the real world it's pretty hard to sack someone, unless it is for serious misconduct. As an employer and we are not talking about small business, if you sack someone because they do not have the skill sets to perform the job, you have to clearly demonstrate that you have done everything in your power to support, train and develop that employee over a reasonable time, if you cannot demonstrate this the Law of the land may rule that you have not provided that employee every opportunity to succeed and this may result in a claim for unfair dismissal

Dutchy wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:Not sure why football should be different to any other place of employment ... If you want someone out and they're contracted then let them go but be prepared to honour the remuneration ... If you don't see a player as part of your plans then I don't see a problem with letting them go.

So if your given a 2 year contract of employment and know you have a steep learning curve and it will take 2 years to become competent in your trade and you are told you have 2 years to prove yourself, you would be pretty dirty that after 12 months they come to you and let you go knowing that the skills you would have built up over the coming 12 months will enhance future earnings?

all jobs are different and need to be assessed individually but in AFL footy you need more than 12 months to develop

I hear your point, but on the other hand, if you get given a two year contract but after the first year look completely out of your depth and show nothing on why you were employed in the first place, then surely the employer has the right to cut that contract early and pay that person out.

I think it is harsh and maybe goes against the spirit of drafting a youngster and giving him a fair go, but I think clubs have got to expect a certain level of competency and actually see that a junior is developing at a normal rate.

I think maybe giving them a spot on the rookie list for a year might be fair.

sydney-dog wrote:Constance_Perm

I hear your point, but in reality, even in the real world it's pretty hard to sack someone, unless it is for serious misconduct. As an employer and we are not talking about small business, if you sack someone because they do not have the skill sets to perform the job, you have to clearly demonstrate that you have done everything in your power to support, train and develop that employee over a reasonable time, if you cannot demonstrate this the Law of the land may rule that you have not provided that employee every opportunity to succeed and this may result in a claim for unfair dismissal

On a salaried, but not contractual basis