Funny about this - Eagles won't sack Kerr

[Blue Boy]

DESPITE two court dates this week, West Coast bad boy Daniel Kerr has still not reached the level which saw Michael Gardiner eventually booted out of the club, according to Eagles coach John Worsfold.

The premier was sent into damage control yet again at the weekend, after Kerr spent the night before the Eagles' NAB Cup opener with Fremantle in the East Perth lock-up.

Charged by police with disorderly conduct after a fracas with a taxi driver in a hospital car park, the 23-year old midfield player also has unrelated assault charges to answer this week.

But, after voicing his disappointment at the Eagles' latest off-field controversy, Worsfold said he will recommend Kerr receive a $10,000 fine - not lose his place in the team.

"Our match committee is pretty adamant he should cop a fine so we will be recommending that to our board," said Worsfold.

"I am not going to predict the future but he hasn't got to that level (of getting put back to the WAFL).

"He wasn't out that late, but he has had an indiscretion where he wasn't in control of himself, and that has hurt us as a club.

"He has to learn what he can and what he can't do. And if he can't have a few drinks and control his emotions then he shouldn't drink.

"There is no doubt he gets targeted more than anyone when he is out and about, so he now has to make a decision: 'Do I keep putting myself in those positions - what's my priorities?'"

Kerr's latest brush with the law comes after drink-related incidents involving Quinten Lynch, Beau Waters, Ben Cousins and Gardiner in recent seasons.

Former All-Australian ruckman Gardiner was sent back to his WAFL club Claremont at the start of last season for poor attitude and behaviour, and was then suspended indefinitely and traded to St Kilda after drunkenly crashing his car.

Despite the catalogue of late-night misbehaviour by his players, Worsfold said an alcohol ban is not the answer.

"We will give them the choice. I know a lot of our players don't drink at all, so there is no use putting an alcohol ban on them," he said.

"Other players have got to make the decision - if they want to drink, and can't drink in moderation and look after themselves, then they are going to cop penalties."

The Eagles board is due to meet over the next 24 hours to discuss a possible penalty for Kerr, who will front court on the assault charges tomorrow, before another appearance on Thursday over Saturday's disorderly conduct allegations.

Worsfold said he expects Kerr to play next weekend, when the Eagles take on Essendon in a practice match at Subiaco.

"I think it was midnight when he got picked up and he was on his way home, as far as I know - in that regard he hasn't really affected how he can perform next week," said Worsfold.

[Blue Boy]

At 23 years of age he is probably still yet to peak if that is possible.

How far is he gonna push the envelope though.

[Squawk]

a $10,000 fine would be less than one match payment for Kerr.

Wonder what Nick Bianco would do if he owned the West Coast Eagles?

Gardiner, Cousins, Kerr, and there may be a few others I can't specifically recall.

If you use banned drugs, you get 3 chances before your name even comes out under the AFL CBA. It's not even a club matter until strike 2, save for the club doctor.

If you commit a criminal offence, it's a club matter and a public matter but what's worse? Drug use is directly related to performance of the individual and hence the team and potentially team results. Criminal behaviour is just bad publicity. So why the need to keep drug use hush hush? Simple. It gives the AFL a bad name moreso than a criminal indiscretion seems to be felt.

If I did that in my job then a fine would be appreciated by me, especially if it was less than a week's wages. Sacking would be more likely.

[blink]

a $10,000 fine would be less than one match payment for Kerr.

Wonder what Nick Bianco would do if he owned the West Coast Eagles?

Gardiner, Cousins, Kerr, and there may be a few others I can't specifically recall.

If you use banned drugs, you get 3 chances before your name even comes out under the AFL CBA. It's not even a club matter until strike 2, save for the club doctor.

If you commit a criminal offence, it's a club matter and a public matter but what's worse? Drug use is directly related to performance of the individual and hence the team and potentially team results. Criminal behaviour is just bad publicity. So why the need to keep drug use hush hush? Simple. It gives the AFL a bad name moreso than a criminal indiscretion seems to be felt.

If I did that in my job then a fine would be appreciated by me, especially if it was less than a week's wages. Sacking would be more likely.

I agree with you here Squawk - small indiscretions like this have resulted in Kerr being crucified. Yet those drug taking players are not named, or severely punished for an offence which is infinitely more serious than what Kerr has done.

I don't condone what Kerr has done, and he has got to take a look at his actions and why he puts himself into these situations.
The answer is that if he wants to be a successful AFL footballer (which he is) then he needs to start acting like one off the field.

[mypaddock]

for all these off field indescretions to stop the afl/afl clubs/police must make an example of kerr. lock the boy up for a couple of nights. these boys will continue to do these types of things unless harsh action is taken. the players know they will be let off with only a slap on the wrist!

[Adelaide Hawk]

for all these off field indescretions to stop the afl/afl clubs/police must make an example of kerr. lock the boy up for a couple of nights. these boys will continue to do these types of things unless harsh action is taken. the players know they will be let off with only a slap on the wrist!

Well said. I've had it with these AFL players who escape their cocoon-like existences within their footy clubs and cannot control themselves in public. It's time the AFL and the clubs set an example, and this is the perfect opportunity. But it won't happen. And why? Because he's a required player, and that makes all the difference in the eyes of the narrow minded football world.

[Punk Rooster]

let me pose a hypothetical...

I'm out on the weekend, get done for drink driving or getting into a fight.
I spend some time in the cells, get charged, go home & sleep it off.
I go to work Monday morning, my boss calls me in & says "I heard you got into trouble on the wekend, I'm fining you $1000, & if you do it again, your sacked..."

WTF?????

Is it the desire to see these tall poppies cut down, that requires the club to punish a player for an indescretion in his own time, so that Fat Jack Slack who watches footy 24-7 feels better about himself?

[Aerie]

let me pose a hypothetical...

I'm out on the weekend, get done for drink driving or getting into a fight.
I spend some time in the cells, get charged, go home & sleep it off.
I go to work Monday morning, my boss calls me in & says "I heard you got into trouble on the wekend, I'm fining you $1000, & if you do it again, your sacked..."

WTF?????

Is it the desire to see these tall poppies cut down, that requires the club to punish a player for an indescretion in his own time, so that Fat Jack Slack who watches footy 24-7 feels better about himself?

Excellent point. I've often wondered about this.

[Squawk]

Why haven't the AFL charged anyone with bringing the competition into disrepute?

Drinking, Domestic Violence, rape (settlement with cash to get charges dropped), fighting etc.

If the AFL was serious they would decide what the penalty would be, not leave it to the clubs.

As for drugs, best just to keep that hush hush and amazingly the AFL went to Court to keep the names from being outed officially. Obviously they knew that would bring the comp into disrepute further.

Punky - there is a line between work and play but any employer who feels that their reputation has been tarnished by the actions of an employee will not hesitate to take action. Police officers, firefighters, public servants etc are all bound to disclose indiscretions by legislation.

What would be a change would be for the media to report indiscretions of their own ranks - you could fill the papers up pretty easily then. But, they have a code amongst themselves to keep most such matters in house. Some of the journos would be mortified if their actions were public knowledge, especially when they are quick to put on the uniform of the moral police and write all about it (often with the article not being attributed to an authoring journalist by name).

[Punk Rooster]

Punky - there is a line between work and play but any employer who feels that their reputation has been tarnished by the actions of an employee will not hesitate to take action. Police officers, firefighters, public servants etc are all bound to disclose indiscretions by legislation.

I take it then, that this legislation does not include AFL footballers though?

[am Bays]

What would be a change would be for the media to report indiscretions of their own ranks - you could fill the papers up pretty easily then. But, they have a code amongst themselves to keep most such matters in house. Some of the journos would be mortified if their actions were public knowledge, especially when they are quick to put on the uniform of the moral police and write all about it (often with the article not being attributed to an authoring journalist by name).

Hmm yes, what did happen to Barich......

[Squawk]

What would be a change would be for the media to report indiscretions of their own ranks - you could fill the papers up pretty easily then. But, they have a code amongst themselves to keep most such matters in house. Some of the journos would be mortified if their actions were public knowledge, especially when they are quick to put on the uniform of the moral police and write all about it (often with the article not being attributed to an authoring journalist by name).

Hmm yes, what did happen to Barich......

Was his situation published in the Arsevertiser? I didn't think it was.

[Squawk]

Punky - there is a line between work and play but any employer who feels that their reputation has been tarnished by the actions of an employee will not hesitate to take action. Police officers, firefighters, public servants etc are all bound to disclose indiscretions by legislation.

I take it then, that this legislation does not include AFL footballers though?

Obviously not Punky.

The point I was making was that no matter what the nature of a business an employer is going to be pretty displeased if an employee brings their business into disrepute. Eg xxx is an airline pilot who, whilst travelling privately on another airline on the way home from his bucks show in the company of other workmates, is shackled on board for turkey slapping the first class passengers whilst telling the passengers that they should fly on his airline in future. xxx is detained on arrival by Federal Police for sexual assault and spends the night in the lockup. He was recognised by the staff of the airline he was travelling with as being a pilot for the rival airline.

Public disrepute there - legislation or no legislation. By the time the media gets hold of it, a problem has become a public relations nightmare.

[Psyber]

let me pose a hypothetical...

I'm out on the weekend, get done for drink driving or getting into a fight.
I spend some time in the cells, get charged, go home & sleep it off.
I go to work Monday morning, my boss calls me in & says "I heard you got into trouble on the wekend, I'm fining you $1000, & if you do it again, your sacked..."

It sounds reasonable to me - it reflects on your degree of integrity and good judgement and therefore on your suitability for any job that requires responsible behaviour in your employment.

[Punk Rooster]

let me pose a hypothetical...

I'm out on the weekend, get done for drink driving or getting into a fight.
I spend some time in the cells, get charged, go home & sleep it off.
I go to work Monday morning, my boss calls me in & says "I heard you got into trouble on the wekend, I'm fining you $1000, & if you do it again, your sacked..."

It sounds reasonable to me - it reflects on your degree of integrity and good judgement and therefore on your suitability for any job that requires responsible behaviour in your employment.

1 unfair dismissal lawsuit coming up....

[Psyber]

let me pose a hypothetical...

I'm out on the weekend, get done for drink driving or getting into a fight.
I spend some time in the cells, get charged, go home & sleep it off.
I go to work Monday morning, my boss calls me in & says "I heard you got into trouble on the wekend, I'm fining you $1000, & if you do it again, your sacked..."

It sounds reasonable to me - it reflects on your degree of integrity and good judgement and therefore on your suitability for any job that requires responsible behaviour in your employment.

1 unfair dismissal lawsuit coming up....

Not under WorkChoices, mate. "This employee has demonstrated he lacks the integrity, lawfulness, and non-violent civility, that is an essential requirement of his employment, involving as it does representation of our company to the public."

[Snaggletooth Tiger]

1 unfair dismissal lawsuit coming up....

In Kerr's case, it looks like it might be a job for former Richmond player Brendon 'Benny' Gale!
I think he's still in charge of the AFLPA ain't he?

...Bloody Pinko Unions! (Li'l Johnny Howard doesn't like 'em!)

[Zorro]

let me pose a hypothetical...

I'm out on the weekend, get done for drink driving or getting into a fight.
I spend some time in the cells, get charged, go home & sleep it off.
I go to work Monday morning, my boss calls me in & says "I heard you got into trouble on the wekend, I'm fining you $1000, & if you do it again, your sacked..."

WTF?????

Is it the desire to see these tall poppies cut down, that requires the club to punish a player for an indescretion in his own time, so that Fat Jack Slack who watches footy 24-7 feels better about himself?

Excellent point. I've often wondered about this.

Yeah same here, but I guess the AFL is an entertainment business and players are paid a wage reflective of the responsibility and burden they need to carry in public. Considering the average pimpled face draftee earns more than the average aust salary, and we know how much the high profile guys earn, I don't think it's too much for their clubs as the employer to tell them to pull their head in.

[Snaggletooth Tiger]

With Woosha being a pharmacist by trade.
You'd think he could prescribe some sort of 'legal' medication
to his charges for the prevention of Dickheadedness!

[Adelaide Hawk]

let me pose a hypothetical...

I'm out on the weekend, get done for drink driving or getting into a fight.
I spend some time in the cells, get charged, go home & sleep it off.
I go to work Monday morning, my boss calls me in & says "I heard you got into trouble on the wekend, I'm fining you $1000, & if you do it again, your sacked..."

WTF?????

Is it the desire to see these tall poppies cut down, that requires the club to punish a player for an indescretion in his own time, so that Fat Jack Slack who watches footy 24-7 feels better about himself?

That's a fair point, but I guess the obvious answer here would be that, as most people wouldn't know where you work, you are not bringing your employer into disrepute. I can guarantee that if you were wearing a coca-cola uniform, you'd be getting a "please explain" the next morning. These AFL players are instantly recognizable, and if they disgrace themselves in the paper it's another black mark against AFL football. As embassadors of the game, they are expected to behave themselves in public.

These AFL players receive tremendous advantages in life just because they play AFL. With the advantages comes responsibility, and some players are not prepared to take that responsibility. As they stand to gain more, they also stand to lose more. Simple as that really.