SA Footy

Hopefully the court stands with and backs the Adelaide Football League decision so that Jesse doesn't play finals

Dutchy wrote:Because of the success of Broadview this season, Mr White is standing to lose at least two match fees if he misses the finals..

This is my favorite bit

Who the hell takes a league to court over $800 - especially an ex-AFL player.

Also why wouldn't the focus be standing to lose a shot at a premiership, instead of match fees? Classic.

The general test to obtain standing for this particular decision involves a loss of income.

Something unlikely to have been explored because of the relative urgency it was brought on and lack of time:
[*] does the $4000 per game in this test satisfy the income threshold given the filing fee itself is close to $3k.
[*] to satisfy the "income" standing test should it be declarable income with associated workcover, super etc.? Or if this is "hobby" income should an applicant lose standing?
[*] having regard to the relatively minor amounts, does it risk a perverse result if Jesse was playing for nothing, but the same alleged injustice was done to him, that he wouldn't have standing to apply for review.

Not really something for the league to fix but for the Courts, but a difficult one.

Another interesting point is whether the filing fee/legal fees should properly be declared under the salary cap if they weren't being paid (directly or indirectly) by Jesse himself.

On the face of it it would seem to me yes.

jo172 wrote:Another interesting point is whether the filing fee/legal fees should properly be declared under the salary cap if they weren't being paid (directly or indirectly) by Jesse himself.

On the face of it it would seem to me yes.

You cant be serious? Does that mean every time a club takes a solicitor or lawyer with them to the tribunal and in the event that the club pays that person for their expertise it should be part of the salary cap? Every person that cares to know anything about amateur football knows that the salary cap is farcical anyway.

oldman wrote:

jo172 wrote:Another interesting point is whether the filing fee/legal fees should properly be declared under the salary cap if they weren't being paid (directly or indirectly) by Jesse himself.

On the face of it it would seem to me yes.

You cant be serious? Does that mean every time a club takes a solicitor or lawyer with them to the tribunal and in the event that the club pays that person for their expertise it should be part of the salary cap? Every person that cares to know anything about amateur football knows that the salary cap is farcical anyway.

The value of all or any part of any Remuneration paid or provided to a Player in a Financial Year under any contract, agreement, arrangement or understanding between an Affiliated League Club or any person or entity directly or indirectly associated with an Affiliated League Club (including without limitation any sponsor, supporter or supporter group of that Affiliated League Club) and a Player which relates to or is consideration for the playing of football or for the provision of support services by that Player to the Club or for any team of that Affiliated League Club in any Match, is or will be deemed to be a Football Payment for the purpose of these Regulations.

Seems to be something of value provided to a player by some kind of arrangement relating to the consideration for the playing of football or the provision of services by the Player to the Club and on that basis a football payment.

This is particularly so in the sense that White's standing to take proceedings was predicated on the basis that he drew an income from playing.

I wasn't gonna doubt you jo - you're too smart for me!

Oh and you have some experience in these spaces (club admin and legal matters)

Dutchy wrote:It was a fair tackle to bring him to ground

Probably not 'fair' to continue to hold someone in a tackle after they have disposed of the ball..

Didn't expect to see most people so supportive of the AdFL on here.

dole-bludger36 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:It was a fair tackle to bring him to ground

Probably not 'fair' to continue to hold someone in a tackle after they have disposed of the ball..

Didn't expect to see most people so supportive of the AdFL on here.

Nice edit

For what it’s worth, not sure it’s so much about people being supportive of AdFL as it is about being shocked / amused that someone would go to such lengths to overturn a 3 week suspension.

Also more to the point, based on other incidents this year 3 weeks would appear to have been incredibly lenient by the Tribunal.

Every chance if the decision is quashed and remitted to the Tribunal a newly constituted tribunal might decide on 4 weeks.

He won the case
So u can elbow a bloke in the head take it to the courts and get off!! What a precedent!!!

hollywood7477 wrote:He won the case
So u can elbow a bloke in the head take it to the courts and get off!! What a precedent!!!

Won, as in;
a) Court ruled he was not guilty of striking
b) Court ruled he was guilty and the 2 games he has already served is a sufficient penalty and he is free to play this week and therefore qualify for finals
c) Court quashed the decision and sent it back to AdFL for a new hearing.

Farcical

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

hollywood7477 wrote:He won the case
So u can elbow a bloke in the head take it to the courts and get off!! What a precedent!!!

Won, as in;
a) Court ruled he was not guilty of striking
b) Court ruled he was guilty and the 2 games he has already served is a sufficient penalty and he is free to play this week and therefore qualify for finals
c) Court quashed the decision and sent it back to AdFL for a new hearing.

C.

Ultimately a matter for the league if they want to convene a new tribunal.

Amusing that Broadview have the Channel 9 visit tonight all things considered

jo172 wrote:Amusing that Broadview have the Channel 9 visit tonight all things considered

Awkies!

I hope Broadview go out in straight sets in the finals.

This is a joke from what the club and player have done.

You should just accept what the penalty was.

Even stranger Im told he actually isn't taking any match payments

Dutchy wrote:Even stranger Im told he actually isn't taking any match payments

That would tend to suggest a little perjury that would be far far more serious (such that whoever told you is presumably wrong)