SA Footy

Agreed that the club has every right to hold them and can if they so wish. I don’t understand as an outsider how that will be beneficial to your club moving forward. Why would a player sign in October for a club that has a history of turmoil.

Old_mate21 wrote:Agreed that the club has every right to hold them and can if they so wish. I don’t understand as an outsider how that will be beneficial to your club moving forward. Why would a player sign in October for a club that has a history of turmoil.

Only one reason isn't there?

Yeah but wouldn’t be a risk I’m willing to take.

Compensation is against CFL rules pag as stated above, as for old mates comments all I can say is haters are gonna hate aren’t they.
Move on mate, players are contracted and the club is well within their right to hold them to that, should be end of discussion on the matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ha ha that is why your club will never move forward. Too many people with too much pride. No business sense at all, that is why you continuously find yourself in the positions you do.

Old_mate21 wrote:Ha ha that is why your club will never move forward. Too many people with too much pride. No business sense at all, that is why you continuously find yourself in the positions you do.

Snakes and ladders.

It’s not about pride mate it’s about fairness to the club and the player.
It would be unfair for the club to release them as the club has based their whole recruiting strategy on our budget, the face these guys were happy to put their hand out and commit to being part of that budget means that we could only recruit based on the amount we had left. Now that they want to leave we would have every right to feel dudded as we could have had the opportunity to recruit someone of equal value.
In fairness to the players, they are more than welcome to play for us and get their compensation they are entitled to as per their contractual agreement, but if they choose to sit out the season based on their own principals of now not wanting to play for us then that is their right.

Everyone has a choice here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Old_mate21 wrote:Agreed that the club has every right to hold them and can if they so wish. I don’t understand as an outsider how that will be beneficial to your club moving forward. Why would a player sign in October for a club that has a history of turmoil.

It’s a tough one. As a coach, I would wanna make a statement of “you signed so you aren’t going anywhere” but in the bigger picture, what does that decision do to my reputation as a coach and the perception of my club.....is it more positive than negative? I don’t know the answer and everyone will have a different opinion. Each to their own I reckon. Run your own club how you want to and deal with the consequences (good or bad) when you have to. Good luck all.

Inallseriousness wrote:

Old_mate21 wrote:Agreed that the club has every right to hold them and can if they so wish. I don’t understand as an outsider how that will be beneficial to your club moving forward. Why would a player sign in October for a club that has a history of turmoil.

It’s a tough one. As a coach, I would wanna make a statement of “you signed so you aren’t going anywhere” but in the bigger picture, what does that decision do to my reputation as a coach and the perception of my club.....is it more positive than negative? I don’t know the answer and everyone will have a different opinion. Each to their own I reckon. Run your own club how you want to and deal with the consequences (good or bad) when you have to. Good luck all.

If I was coach, I wouldn't want anyone to play at my club or underneath me that didn't want to be there. It doesn't have a culture that you want the rest of the playing group being involved in. If BL are happy to have blokes rock up for 2 hrs, and still take their pay check good luck to them.

Groover wrote:Compensation is against CFL rules pag as stated above, as for old mates comments all I can say is haters are gonna hate aren’t they.
Move on mate, players are contracted and the club is well within their right to hold them to that, should be end of discussion on the matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm well aware of this mate, but if I wanted to a change of scenery in Round 5 and my new club was willing to pay my subs at previous club to get the clearance approved, this is almost the same thing. Has been happening forever.

Interesting conversation above.. Why would players balk at signing with BL in future if they hold Brooks etc to their 2018 contracts? Would you, as a player, think "I'm not signing with Brahma, they actually uphold you to the contract, how weird is that?'.. That's the whole point of a contract is it not?

The mindset above of 'if a player doesn't want to be there, why wouldn't you let him go?' is the exact reason why the contracts aren't worth the piece of paper they are written on. If you aren't going to enforce them, why have them?

I see the point that a change of coach and conditions could also make a contract void, as a coach would be an integral part of a players thoughts on whether they would sign, hence the interesting situation here..

I don't think it should be a blight on Brahma if they were to hold players to contracts, who knows it might even send the message in future to prospective recruits that the club value the contracts put in front of prospective players, but I think they also have to factor in the change in coach to the situation here. Makes for a tough decision for you LTTF, I admire your strong stance but don't envy your position

lovetotalkfooty wrote:

Danky$$ wrote:I would let them go, brooks has said he isn’t gonna return he’s just gonna sit the year out. I know kilburn had Bruno olaughlin, Luke and cliff Wilson sign contracts for the 2018 season late last year but then they decided to head elsewhere and kilburn cleared them straight away. It’s local footy mate let the kid have fun not sit a year out.

Brooksy has zero connection to the club and will likely never ever return to the club again. I have never once asked brooksy to sit out the year and have always been honest about his desire to see out his contract and then make a decision about 2019. If he choses to sit out in 2018 then thats his decision.

Unfortunately its not local football anymore but a business. I wish it was different and yearn for the old days but players continue to demand money for their services and therefore almost become employees. The employer needs to be protected too.

LTTF, out of interest, has there been any 'mediation', or much contact between you and the player in question?

Has the olive branch been offered?

I don't know the player or really anything about BL tbh, so am curious to know whether in the circumstances an effort has been made to welcome the player back and get him involved again.

Understandably it's an awkward situation.

ramming23 wrote:

Wilbur wrote:Going to be a long year for 9 clubs in Div 6, no one will get close to West Croydon.

Cemented themselves as flag favourites yesterday after easily accounting for he Div 5 flag favourites (Lockleys).

Don’t base too much off a trial game. Lockleys were apparently quite a few of their key players down and West Croydon were almost full strength

I'm sure the Dees did have a couple out, but lets remember that they are the D5 flag favourites, and have got great depth, so a couple out probably isn't going to make as big a difference to them as it would other sides.

The Dees are very confident of going all the way this year, they've learnt somewhat from last year though and are keeping a lid on it.

west croydon had 2 out,also took their best backman ,2 mids & a forward off at halftime to ice up.but its only a trial game,there were mixed reports about how strong lockleys team was.

Groover wrote:Maybe the club trying to sign these lads should have realised they were already contracted and turned them away instead of crying foul when they don’t get cleared...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is the same logic applied if a club contacts a coach who is already under contract and tries to poach them? Glass houses.

Has Brahma ever had a contracted player and sacked them?

S Demon wrote:

Groover wrote:Maybe the club trying to sign these lads should have realised they were already contracted and turned them away instead of crying foul when they don’t get cleared...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is the same logic applied if a club contacts a coach who is already under contract and tries to poach them? Glass houses.

I have no knowledge to the situation you are referring to, but I assume the contractual obligations between a coach and club vs a player and club are of a slightly different nature due to coaches more dispensable due to performance reviews etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Old_mate21 wrote:Has Brahma ever had a contracted player and sacked them?

For undiciplinary behaviour yes
Any other reason unsure


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Old_mate21 wrote:Has Brahma ever had a contracted player and sacked them?

They had a contracted coach and sacked him before R1

Wilbur wrote:

ramming23 wrote:

Wilbur wrote:Going to be a long year for 9 clubs in Div 6, no one will get close to West Croydon.

Cemented themselves as flag favourites yesterday after easily accounting for he Div 5 flag favourites (Lockleys).

Don’t base too much off a trial game. Lockleys were apparently quite a few of their key players down and West Croydon were almost full strength

I'm sure the Dees did have a couple out, but lets remember that they are the D5 flag favourites, and have got great depth, so a couple out probably isn't going to make as big a difference to them as it would other sides.

The Dees are very confident of going all the way this year, they've learnt somewhat from last year though and are keeping a lid on it.

doesnt matter if we had 2,12 or 22 out..we put a team on the park and it was a totally unacceptable performance in regards to effort after quarter time..

there is no lid wilbur, its our goal to try and play in a GF of course as all teams should be.. we have recruited nicely but we also have over half a dozen A graders who arent playing this year for whatever reason so it all gets evened out and thats the reality of the situation..months ago i said the 3 college teams and wsfc are the ones to beat in div 5..nothing has changed for me..

as for wcfc, they were excellent..played their chip/possession style well and stuck to it..hawks have lots of pace around the edges and on what i saw must be a lock to be top 3..thanks to michael and his group for the game and best of luck for the year..