Another Luke Ball Poll

[H_T 3,042]

Is it just me, or have some posters been adding votes since this thread was bumped .. ?

[The Chazz 4,077]

Yes and on the same basis so have you.

The AFL cannot instigate a "law" or regulation that is in direct contravention of Federal privacy laws and potentially triggering restraint of trade. Why do you claim earlier that Ball was entitled to control his health records???

Ball could still refuse to go to any other Club and his preferred Club could structure his package to be restrictive to other Clubs to take on. Try again Billy.

RR, what is your issue? My initial comment agreed with both your view (which legally is 100% correct), as well as WYLs view (which is also correct in regards to the draft system being a total waste of time in the Ball case).

And in regards to me "trying again", I was just offering a possible solution for the issue at hand. The issue? Ball, within his right, witheld medical documents from all but his chosen Club, entered the draft knowing too well that he would end up there, but the "idea" of the draft is that ALL clubs have the right to chose any player they wish to that has nominated, regardless of back room deals that have taken place. It's not set up for players to dictate what Club they will go to, but Ball, Collingwood and in some regards the AFL, allowed this sort of thing to happen which is a disgrace.

:wacko: :wacko:

[Sir Why You Little 36,773]

Is it just me, or have some posters been adding votes since this thread was bumped .. ?

HaHaHa! Late comers....

[dee-luded 2,959]

It is so important that the MFC has re aligned with the MCC when we did. To be alone now would be very dangerous to our survival

Agreed, it's a good thing as long as the MCC genuinely looking out for MFC's interests, as opposed to what they gave us, or didn't give us in the early '80's. The facilities were atrocious and a disgrace for our great club.

And roping off the centre wicket area on training nights, all but forcing us Off the MCG arena. And then we did move. Rivalry & spite.

[daisycutter 29,482]

Restraint of trade issues are part of it. The other is the workplace harassment issues if the AFL were seen to be forcing Ball to put forward his private medical records. I am not sure how legally exposed the AFL were if they threatened to restrict Ball's participation of the draft under workplace harrassment considerations.

Your measured assessment of the Ball impact on the draft situation is valid and FA will at this stage only apply yo LT players.

Not necessarily relevant here but......

I would expect employment contracts for professional sportspeople would include a requirement to disclose pre-existing medical conditions

A later discovery that a sportsperson did not disclose such information could result in a breach of contract situation

This is certainly true in some other industries

Of course no one is forcing anyone to disclose info subject to privacy but no disclosure = no contract offer.

Whether the requirement of disclosure was legally relevant to the particular employment contract would be for a court to decide but in the case of professional footballer it should be reasonable to expect medical disclosure of pre-existing conditions (but only those relevant to the performance of duties of a footballer)

I know I'm being pedantic but its not just a simple issue of privacy

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

RR, what is your issue? My initial comment agreed with both your view (which legally is 100% correct), as well as WYLs view (which is also correct in regards to the draft system being a total waste of time in the Ball case).

And in regards to me "trying again", I was just offering a possible solution for the issue at hand. The issue? Ball, within his right, witheld medical documents from all but his chosen Club, entered the draft knowing too well that he would end up there, but the "idea" of the draft is that ALL clubs have the right to chose any player they wish to that has nominated, regardless of back room deals that have taken place. It's not set up for players to dictate what Club they will go to, but Ball, Collingwood and in some regards the AFL, allowed this sort of thing to happen which is a disgrace.

:wacko: :wacko:

I have heard the complaints about Ball situation but I cant see what Ball and Collingwood have done wrong as they have both achieved their outcomes. And has been said by a number of people if MFC achieved this we would all be crowing. We just have to move on from being whinging cut cats. The whole discussion descended when there were spurious claims that MFC did not work hard enough to get Ball. Its been dealt with ad nauseam that Ball would not deal with anyone but the Pies but we seem to have peddlers of malignant conspiracy theories being selective with the facts.

Its all very well what the idea of the intent or aim of the draft. But in the particular situation of Ball I cant see how the AFL can legislate above the privacy act, restraint of trade and employment law to force draftees/employees to disclose highly sensitive and personal information about themselves.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Not necessarily relevant here but......

I would expect employment contracts for professional sportspeople would include a requirement to disclose pre-existing medical conditions

A later discovery that a sportsperson did not disclose such information could result in a breach of contract situation

This is certainly true in some other industries

Of course no one is forcing anyone to disclose info subject to privacy but no disclosure = no contract offer.

Whether the requirement of disclosure was legally relevant to the particular employment contract would be for a court to decide but in the case of professional footballer it should be reasonable to expect medical disclosure of pre-existing conditions (but only those relevant to the performance of duties of a footballer)

I know I'm being pedantic but its not just a simple issue of privacy

I agree with what you are saying Daisy but the issue is that Ball did not want to "work" for MFC or any club other than Collingwood. He had not obligation of disclosure to them on his health details. And MFC and others had no right to access it unless Ball authorised it. i think it would be impossible for the AFL to enforce otherwise given the law. Happy for a legal expert to provide a view

[Sir Why You Little 36,773]

Agreed, it's a good thing as long as the MCC genuinely looking out for MFC's interests, as opposed to what they gave us, or didn't give us in the early '80's. The facilities were atrocious and a disgrace for our great club.

And roping off the centre wicket area on training nights, all but forcing us Off the MCG arena. And then we did move. Rivalry & spite.

What must happen going forward DL is that the MFC becomes an assett to the MCC family and not a burden, which in the '80's may well have been the case.

[McQueen 17,864]

luke ball is very overrated imo he is slow and kick more than 35m, i think his injuries really got to him

He managed to kick the filth in to the Granny last year with a very good goal in the dying moments against the Hawks.

That's some worth I would've thought.

[daisycutter 29,482]

I agree with what you are saying Daisy but the issue is that Ball did not want to "work" for MFC or any club other than Collingwood. He had not obligation of disclosure to them on his health details. And MFC and others had no right to access it unless Ball authorised it. i think it would be impossible for the AFL to enforce otherwise given the law. Happy for a legal expert to provide a view

Rhino, I already said previously that in Ball's case he wasn't seeking a contract with anyone but Collingwood so the choice of disclosure was his.

What the AFL should do about these sort of tactics (e.g. Ball) re the Draft I don't really know but it certainly smacks of circumventing the spirit of the Draft

By these tactics I don't just mean non-disclosure of medical info, but I also include failure to allow contact/discussions with other clubs, insistence on front-loading (as separate from just nominating your price) provisions etc. I certainly would hope the AFL have a good look at the rules in light of the Ball case. For all I know they probably have or are.

[Sir Why You Little 36,773]

Rhino, I already said previously that in Ball's case he wasn't seeking a contract with anyone but Collingwood so the choice of disclosure was his.

What the AFL should do about these sort of tactics (e.g. Ball) re the Draft I don't really know but it certainly smacks of circumventing the spirit of the Draft

By these tactics I don't just mean non-disclosure of medical info, but I also include failure to allow contact/discussions with other clubs, insistence on front-loading (as separate from just nominating your price) provisions etc. I certainly would hope the AFL have a good look at the rules in light of the Ball case. For all I know they probably have or are.

If Luke Ball only wished to "work" for one club IMO he should have forfeited his right to enter the AFL draft. All clubs would have done their homework on his medical condition. If you enter the Draft, you go where your number is called.

[The Chazz 4,077]

If Luke Ball only wished to "work" for one club IMO he should have forfeited his right to enter the AFL draft. All clubs would have done their homework on his medical condition. If you enter the Draft, you go where your number is called.

Spot on WYL. This is the bit that RR is shosing not to understand.

Put it in another way, if Pendlebury quit Collingwood, and said that he only wanted to play for the MFC and that he will enter the draft, only showing the MFC his medical records, do you think it would stop GWS picking him up before us?

Ball entered the draft, dictated where he wanted to play, did everything in his powers to make sure it happend, denying any other Club the chance of drafting him, even though they officially had the opportunity to do because he was available at every pick until 31 (or whatever it was). For me it's not about the fact the we didn't go hard after him, it's about how they (Ball and Collingwood) ensured they achieved the desired outcome for both parties. This sort of thing shouldn't happen through the National Draft, and as a result, Free Agency has been introduced.

RR - surely you have been around AFL long enough to realise that Vlad's rules overpower any state or federal law??!!!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Spot on WYL. This is the bit that RR is shosing not to understand.

Put it in another way, if Pendlebury quit Collingwood, and said that he only wanted to play for the MFC and that he will enter the draft, only showing the MFC his medical records, do you think it would stop GWS picking him up before us?

Ball entered the draft, dictated where he wanted to play, did everything in his powers to make sure it happend, denying any other Club the chance of drafting him, even though they officially had the opportunity to do because he was available at every pick until 31 (or whatever it was). For me it's not about the fact the we didn't go hard after him, it's about how they (Ball and Collingwood) ensured they achieved the desired outcome for both parties. This sort of thing shouldn't happen through the National Draft, and as a result, Free Agency has been introduced.

RR - surely you have been around AFL long enough to realise that Vlad's rules overpower any state or federal law??!!!

Its not that easy to do what you are planning Billy.The risk of doing that would be restricting Ball and that would be a restraint of trade. Its easy to dream up ultimatums and draconian steps for the AFL....so long as you can do it in a vacuum where there are no pre existing laws. its this issue that undermines the intention of the draft and hence we have the FA arrangements we have. And before we bleat like wounded sheep, people forget that MFC had breached the intention of the draft rules by tanking. I did not hear too many complaints then.

RR - surely you have been around AFL long enough to realise that Vlad's rules overpower any state or federal law??!!!

Nice one Billy. But careful some posters might take you seriously that its true.

[Sir Why You Little 36,773]

Its not that easy to do what you are planning Billy.The risk of doing that would be restricting Ball and that would be a restraint of trade. Its easy to dream up ultimatums and draconian steps for the AFL....so long as you can do it in a vacuum where there are no pre existing laws. its this issue that undermines the intention of the draft and hence we have the FA arrangements we have. And before we bleat like wounded sheep, people forget that MFC had breached the intention of the draft rules by tanking. I did not hear too many complaints then.

Yes restraint of trade. A very grey area i have long discussed with legal friends. (not just AFL either.) Although AFL is more concentrated.

Now Luke Ball could have used restraint of trade in theory if he had not got to the Filth. But also the MFC in theory could have used a restraint of trade against Ball if he did not co operate if we had picked him, as he was an unwilling participant in an open draft. It didn't happen. In some ways i wish it had to help expose the lop-sided sham the AFL preside over.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

But also the MFC in theory could have used a restraint of trade against Ball if he did not co operate if we had picked him, as he was an unwilling participant in an open draft. It didn't happen. In some ways i wish it had to help expose the lop-sided sham the AFL preside over.

Now you are dreaming and out of your depth again.

There could be no restraint of trade on Ball's behalf if he told MFC before the draft I will not play for you. You cant force someone to sign of contract of service against their will. Its so obvious. Maybe you did not understand what your legal friends were talking about at the time.

[Sir Why You Little 36,773]

Now you are dreaming and out of your depth again.

There could be no restraint of trade on Ball's behalf if he told MFC before the draft I will not play for you. You cant force someone to sign of contract of service against their will. Its so obvious. Maybe you did not understand what your legal friends were talking about at the time.

Give it a rest Rhino. Not all people on Earth agree with all of your words. I know my solicitor very well. When Ball entered the draft he was rolling the dice. If a different club had picked him up...it was on. He dodged a very big minefield.

I am sure you will disagree.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Give it a rest Rhino. Not all people on Earth agree with all of your words. I know my solicitor very well. When Ball entered the draft he was rolling the dice. If a different club had picked him up...it was on. He dodged a very big minefield.

I am sure you will disagree.

You might know your solicitor very well (been in a spot of trouble have we!) but you do not understand the principles you're toying with. When Ball entered the draft he was rollling the dice but the dice were heavily loaded in his favour(Isnt that what you have been whinging about for past 30 posts?). If a different club picked him up after he said he would only play for the Pies, Ball could either negotiate to play with that other Club or he could say no deal and the Club would would be stuffed with a dud pick. Ball could have been finished as a footballer As we have already covered no Club was going to sacrifice a pick ahead of Collingwood at pick 30 and match their offering price when there was a significant contract risk and health risk at stake. There is no restraint of trade issue that you refer to on Ball. Next time get your friend to write it down for you.

[Demonsterative 3,019]

RR is technically right. State and Fedral laws allow people to choose their employer. I often wondered how the 'Draft' would stand up if say, a 17yo challenged the draft if they were forced to move interstate. Maybe the AFL have a loop hole that my amatuer legal knowledge (lack of knowledge really) does not understant

The same analogy can be made if some one wanted to move dept's within Telstra but a draft interfered with ones right to choose, especially if they were qualified to move just like the Ball situation.

Im surprised the draft hasn't been challenged especially with the player who left GWS due to home sickness (forget his name) , and ended up with WC on tbe rookie list. In this situation, if WC wanted him, laws allow him to move without going thru the stress of a draft. The Ball situation of moving is exactly the same

Having said this, the personal attacks i do not agree with. I also dont agree that constant conversation between RR and WYL. No offence guys, but the constantant conversation between you two saying the same thing in a different way is painful. No offence again

[Sir Why You Little 36,773]

You might know your solicitor very well (been in a spot of trouble have we!) but you do not understand the principles you're toying with. When Ball entered the draft he was rollling the dice but the dice were heavily loaded in his favour(Isnt that what you have been whinging about for past 30 posts?). If a different club picked him up after he said he would only play for the Pies, Ball could either negotiate to play with that other Club or he could say no deal and the Club would would be stuffed with a dud pick. Ball could have been finished as a footballer As we have already covered no Club was going to sacrifice a pick ahead of Collingwood at pick 30 and match their offering price when there was a significant contract risk and health risk at stake. There is no restraint of trade issue that you refer to on Ball. Next time get your friend to write it down for you.

Once again you are telling me things i already know (ad naesuem i must say).

Does not change my view of a dodgy draft.

I wish it had been challenged on many levels.

Players are employees of the AFL as well as their clubs who work under the system of a National Draft. Ball and his management overlooked this and got away with it.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Rhino Richards

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Once again you are telling me things i already know (ad naesuem i must say).

Does not change my view of a dodgy draft.

I wish it had been challenged on many levels.

Players are employees of the AFL as well as their clubs who work under the system of a National Draft. Ball and his management overlooked this and got away with it.

Its a pity that what you write seems in direct contrast to what you claim you know. While you want the Ball decision challenged on many levels you have not come up with any plausible or reasonable basis to do so without contravening existing laws.

And once again you are wrong about the draftees employment status. They are not employees at that point of the AFL and the Club as they have not signed any contract of employment at that stage. The same would apply to Ball whose contract at St Kilda had lapsed with all conditions satisfied when he entered the draft. And even if you were correct, Ball as employee of a Club or the AFL is afforded even greater legal protections under the law than if he wasnt. I think this is another issue you may have overlooked this. Ball and management knew exactly what they were doing even if you cant work it out yourself. But I know you know all this.