I figured these guys needed their own topic after this little gem from caro

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/union-told-jake-carlisles-manager-not-to-tell-saints-of-drug-allegations-20151029-gkmd80.html

Tbh this is a disgrace.

Would the saints have grounds to sue?

Add this to the way theyve sided with essendon and the afl with the drugs saga and they arent exactly a wonderful union....

AFLPA is as corrupt and is as much to blame for the denigration of our great game as the AFL itself.

Amazing...

THe AFLPA are the ones ruining our game

They are extremely immoral and they forced free agency upon us and other ludicrous rules that make the competition unfair.

  On 29/10/2015 at 12:39, Petraccattack said:

THe AFLPA are the ones ruining our game

They are extremely immoral and they forced free agency upon us and other ludicrous rules that make the competition unfair.

I entirely agree Petraccattack.

Re. the article, that relevant information should have been given. No excuse that everything wasn't yet known about it, transparency should mandate that they disclose whatever they know.

I'd hope St. Kilda have every right to get out of the whole deal if they choose to, and perhaps the AFLPA should pay the Saints costs.

What a bizarre bunch of corrupt organization. Unbelievable how Gil has been so silent on this..

oh wait the new drug test will take care all of that.m

Disgusting situation if proved to be fact

The AFL is starting to eat itself now

  On 29/10/2015 at 19:45, dazzledavey36 said:

What a bizarre bunch of corrupt organization. Unbelievable how Gil has been so silent on this..

gil's standard response IS say nothing.

say what you like about andy d, but he ruled with an iron fist. gil runs by committee and focus group.

I was wondering if the player manager would be deregistered.

But after reading the article I wonder what sanction should be levelled at the PA.

It's great that they look after the players' interests, but at any cost? Where's the line?

The player has dodged a strike, St Kilda served a lemon, and the game has most definitely been brought into disrepute. In fact it looks [censored] foolish.

  On 29/10/2015 at 20:51, DemonAndrew said:

gil's standard response IS say nothing.

say what you like about andy d, but he ruled with an iron fist. gil runs by committee and focus group.

Good old "Dill the Likeable"...

Now this IS one union that should have a Witch Hunt (Royal) Commission launched into it's practices!

Jobs for the boys

  On 29/10/2015 at 20:56, Ted Fidge said:

I was wondering if the player manager would be deregistered.

But after reading the article I wonder what sanction should be levelled at the PA.

It's great that they look after the players' interests, but at any cost? Where's the line?

The player has dodged a strike, St Kilda served a lemon, and the game has most definitely been brought into disrepute. In fact it looks [censored] foolish.

reminds me of the old ama

protect the member no matter what (or whatever it takes!)

Surely withholding information that could be detrimental to one or both parties to a contract would breach a negative information disclosure clause. I assume that player contract would include some form of disclosure clause.

Failure to disclose possible negative information should be grounds for breach of contract.

I imagine one question asked would be along the lines of. Is there anything that has not been disclosed that could possibly cause problems now & in the future? Examples include but not limited to undisclosed injuries, police charges or pending investigations, illegal activities, drug use recreational and or performance enhancing? This would be after extensive due diligence and background checking.

I have no legal training so may be totally wrong here. (Door open - kick me now)

Saints will be dirty

Just waiting for strike threat

The AFLPA's job is to support the players. The player managers' job is to look after the interests of the players they represent. The only failure here is from the player himself. If he's brought the game into disrepute (arguable, but definitely something to consider), then the player should be penalised.

The AFLPA failed to look after the welfare of the player in this instance.

  On 29/10/2015 at 23:33, Clint Bizkit said:

The AFLPA failed to look after the welfare of the player in this instance.

How so?

  On 29/10/2015 at 23:48, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

How so?

Jake Carlisle potentially could have a serious drug problem and the AFLPA told his management to sweep it under the carpet instead of addressing the issue and helping the player.

  On 29/10/2015 at 23:26, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The AFLPA's job is to support the players. The player managers' job is to look after the interests of the players they represent.

Yes. But the deception involved means the transaction was not carried out in good faith. You could argue, if St Kilda are too stupid to work out there's a problem then too bad for them. Recall when Richmond worked out Trengove had a dodgy foot. Good for them. But it's a bit hard for St Kilda to do their due diligence when information is being hidden from them.

  On 30/10/2015 at 00:41, Ted Fidge said:

Yes. But the deception involved means the transaction was not carried out in good faith. You could argue, if St Kilda are too stupid to work out there's a problem then too bad for them. Recall when Richmond worked out Trengove had a dodgy foot. Good for them. But it's a bit hard for St Kilda to do their due diligence when information is being hidden from them.

I'm not sure I agree. If I'm being interviewed for a job and I'm asked a question and answer it falsely, that's a problem. But if I'm not asked the question, am I obliged to provide information damaging to my prospects?

I take your point, but this is not like a normal job. If you're applying for a job at a supermarket, or an architects, or in a retail store, or at the council, the employer doesn't have to worry about your behaviour and its ramifications in terms of sponsorships and memberships and the like.

One of the points that came out when the Carlisle video came out was that he was on "annual leave". As if that's something that footballers get like normal plebs like most of us. As if a footballer can apply for leave any time he's "accrued" enough days. Say in August or September. Of course it doesn't work that way and the footballer structures his life around the football season and football club. For better or worse.

There are lots of things different about the footballing vocation that is unlike nearly every other vocation and the same rules do not apply.

  On 30/10/2015 at 02:56, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not sure I agree. If I'm being interviewed for a job and I'm asked a question and answer it falsely, that's a problem. But if I'm not asked the question, am I obliged to provide information damaging to my prospects?

i guess it depends on your own moral values or whether you believe in "whatever it takes"

he certainly knew it was out there and he certainly should have known that once he was on the saints payroll he would be obliged to tell them ans explain himself

so why didn't he? i think we know why.

  On 30/10/2015 at 06:48, Ted Fidge said:

I take your point, but this is not like a normal job. If you're applying for a job at a supermarket, or an architects, or in a retail store, or at the council, the employer doesn't have to worry about your behaviour and its ramifications in terms of sponsorships and memberships and the like.

Also, there's no anti-doping code if you're working in a supermarket or as an architect.

The information that was deliberately withheld goes to the player's capacity to fulfil his contract. Which is why it was deliberately withheld in the first place.

  On 30/10/2015 at 06:52, daisycutter said:

i guess it depends on your own moral values or whether you believe in "whatever it takes"

he certainly knew it was out there and he certainly should have known that once he was on the saints payroll he would be obliged to tell them ans explain himself

so why didn't he? i think we know why.

dc, are you referring to Carlisle or the manager? As it happens, I'm not sure either had a duty to disclose the information, but neither should they complain if action is now taken against Carlisle including, should the Saints want, termination of the contract or a substantial rewriting of its terms.