The stance taken by Paul Marsh, head of the players association, on the Essendon verdict, dramatically illustrates why this organisation is about as dysfunctional as Essendon itself. The Association is supposed to look after the interests of ALL AFL players, yet it has consistently pursed through the the last three years the interests of the Essendon 34 instead of championing the health of the AFL's entire playing group. 

I can think of no more important industrial relations issue than ensuring all employees have a safe work environment, yet in spite of Essendon's being condemned by WorkSafe and indeed being heavily fined for it, and CAS condemning it as being unsafe over a two year period, the AFLPA chooses to condemn these judgements and takes no stance about workplace safety in general, or the disgrace of the EFC's behaviour.

Further, shouldn't one of the primary roles of the organisation dedicated to the welfare of the players be to ensure that the AFL fields a fair competition. Instead Marsh has said nothing about a doped up Essendon in 2012/2013 creating an UNFAiIR playing field, thereby substantially affecting the welfare of the players from the other 17 clubs. 

Nothing could illustrate more dramatically how out of touch the AFLPA is when yesterday Marsh called for the AFL to abandon its support for the WADA code. The implications of this action would be the AFL players would have no internationally sanctioned protection and enforcement of safe work places, and would have to rely on the imperfect and dysfunctional rules of the AFL, in much the same way as the American NFL do who operate outside WADA rules. This is not altogether unrelated to the fact that there are scandal, after scandal after scandal in the NFL,  usually related to unrestricted drug use. It should not be something the AFL should aspire to. 

It is about time the AFL players of integrity stood up to Marsh's regime. What was it about "what happens when good men do nothing........."? Scandals like Essendon occur that's what, with catastrophic results, not least for the players.

Edited January 12, 20169 yr by Dees2014

Yeah Marsh is a fIog of the highest order in regards to this whole saga. He should be blasting the club that put his players at risk.

Absolutely no idea.

100% agree.

He should have come out and said they will support the players through this suspension but it is important to keep integrity in the AFL. Instead they came out and threw a tantrum about it. Not the first time they have done that either.

This verdict also shows how poor the AFL management are. I just read that there will be a commission on whether Jobe Watson should return his brownlow! Seriously, can they not make one decision without a commission being held? It is pretty straight forward, he was caught CHEATING the year he won therefore he should NOT be illegible!

There was a crucial stage during this saga when decisions were made concerning the legal representation of the players without total separation from that of their football club. The position of the players was that neither we nor the club were cheats and therefore, in my view, a whole range of matters didn't appear to get the consideration they merited.

I think it was in or around mid 2014 after Ben McDevitt was appointed, that the players made poor readings of the situation. ASADA's concession that they could not achieve a guilty ruling on AOD9604 (wrong in my view) buoyed the players and hardened their attitudes towards the possibility of making a deal on the charges based on TB4 which, according to some reports, could have seen them banned for the remainder of that season. The saga would have been over by the beginning of 2015, the penalty marginally more harsh than the one that the NRL players took. 

Had there been total separation between the interests of the club and the players, then I believe the possibility of a deal would have been given a lot more consideration. The AFLPA should have been at the forefront in seeing that its membership was being properly served. I'm not sure that it did that.

Marsh's outburst yesterday was totally unbecoming and the frustration shown in his words reflects his organisation's ineptitude in its handling of the matter. He should be one of the first to resign.

Agree with everything said above.

But I believe things would have to get a lot worse in the PA to get better. There appear to be no rumblings from the players about the representation they are getting.

Until the players themselves make a stand and insist that the PA is funded by them, and not the AFL, they will continue to get this conflicted misdirected policy.

26 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Agree with everything said above.

But I believe things would have to get a lot worse in the PA to get better. There appear to be no rumblings from the players about the representation they are getting.

Until the players themselves make a stand and insist that the PA is funded by them, and not the AFL, they will continue to get this conflicted misdirected policy.

Didn't know that. Explains a lot.

Its interesting that AFLPA and player lawyers broke the news to the players, not Essendon.  It wasn't until EFC/Hird lost the first Fed Court case that players decided to run their own race, with AFLPA. 

It seems they badly misunderstood the ASADA/WADA appeal process.  It seems only EFC/AFL/AFLPA were surprised when WADA appealed.

They also seriously underestimated Richard Young and failed to research how he wins his cases.

They seemed to not understand how to mount a defense at CAS:  they allowed WADA to take a 'strands in a 'strands in a cable approach'.  They clearly didn't understand what that meant and thought the 'link in the chain approach' used at the AFL Tribunal would win the day (see 110 and 111 of CAS judgement).  Eventually they realised their blunder and tried to get the WADA approach thrown out but it was too late. 

Clearly the AFLPA were way out of their depth!!  Why did AFLPA not get a crack international lawyer who understands WADA, CAS, Richard Young, 'strands in a cable vs links in a chain' etc, etc?   It was the biggest mistake of the many mistakes by AFLPA.   

Yesterday, was a tad late for 'crocodile tears' from Marsh...really just 'crying over spilt milk'.  He looked like a poor loser refusing to accept the umpires decision.

 

 

Edited January 12, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero

I felt it was inappropriate for him to be voicing such strong opinions in the presser, WADA is still the governing anti doping code for the AFL and he has just set an example that it is okay to disrespect them, they did their job and the AFLPA unfortunately have no idea where the lines of their job begin and end, should be supporting the players who didn't cheat, not those who did.

15 minutes ago, sue said:

Didn't know that. Explains a lot.

 

Hell yes, it's a FUBAR arrangement. 

AFL players, like all professional sportsman, have both rights and responsibilities. Unfortunately, the AFLPA led by example and have cared far about their rights and neglected their responsibilities. You can't expect to be paid like a professional and treated like a professional if you then don't act like a professional.

The AFLPA have completely failed to represent the entire playing group.

I'm getting sick of hearing that there are no winners out of yesterdays verdict.  Clean footballers are winners.  Sports fan who want as fair as possible playing field are winners. People who want to ensure "the dog ate my homework" defence gets given the treatment it deserves are winners.

The AFL funds the AFLPA while this situation continues there will never be a professional union representing the Players.

They will always be conflicted.

Until the Players fund their own AFLPA and become involved in the running of such they will be at the mercy of incompetents.

While I don't disagree with the sentiments above, don't forget Marsh is an employ of the AFLPA and may just be expressing the views he was asked to present by his Board. I can't recall who is no the AFLPA Board, but I think it's generally accepted they're from the deeper end of the AFL player gene pool.

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While I don't disagree with the sentiments above, don't forget Marsh is an employ of the AFLPA and may just be expressing the views he was asked to present by his Board. I can't recall who is no the AFLPA Board, but I think it's generally accepted they're from the deeper end of the AFL player gene pool.

A fairly thin group then LDC

7 minutes ago, old dee said:

A fairly thin group then LDC

Well, I know I wouldn't be diving in at that end.

The AFLPA is akin to a trade union trying to keep the jobs of a small group of workers who have openly flouted workplace safety regulations, favouring them over the great majority of other workers whose ongoing safety and wellbeing ought to be paramount. They need to ask whose interests they really represent.

Here are the current AFLPA board members:

Brad Sewell

Chris Dawes

Brad Sewell

Leigh Montagna

Ted Richards

Murray Brown 

Jimmy Bartell

Matthew Pavlich

Patrick Dangerfield

Will Minson

 

This is the way the AFLPA explains its role on its website:

 

The AFL Players’ Association (AFL Players’) has a 40 year rich history and has entrenched itself as a key stakeholder in the AFL industry. With a 100% uptake of membership, the PA has grown in influence and size to become a respected champion of players and the game. It is the belief of the AFL Players‘ that the core asset of the AFL is its players and central to this, as key stakeholders of the game, players deserve to continue to have their voices heard on all issues pertaining to themselves and the game. As an advocate for its members and the broader community, AFL Players’ is passionate about instilling a sense of integrity and belonging and showcasing these players as people first and athletes second.

 

I would have thought that was a reasonably good quality board, but on the website nothing about governance or formal reponsibilites, which probably means it is not a high priority. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see this group if they were acting as an independent board that they would be so blatantly acting in the interests of Essendon and the AFL.

 

Gill pulling the purse strings again? That's my guess

Edited January 12, 20169 yr by Dees2014

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

They seemed to not understand how to mount a defense at CAS:  they allowed WADA to take a 'strands in a 'strands in a cable approach'.  They clearly didn't understand what that meant and thought the 'link in the chain approach' used at the AFL Tribunal would win the day (see 110 and 111 of CAS judgement).  Eventually they realised their blunder and tried to get the WADA approach thrown out but it was too late.

To me, this is the crux of the whole saga.

I always have the feeling, on any issue, the AFLPA express the view that the AFL would like to - but can't.

20 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

Here are the current AFLPA board members:

Brad Sewell

Chris Dawes

Drew Petrie

Leigh Montagna

Ted Richards

Murray Brown 

Jimmy Bartell

Matthew Pavlich

Patrick Dangerfield

Will Minson

 

This is the way the AFLPA explains its role on its website:

 

The AFL Players’ Association (AFL Players’) has a 40 year rich history and has entrenched itself as a key stakeholder in the AFL industry. With a 100% uptake of membership, the PA has grown in influence and size to become a respected champion of players and the game. It is the belief of the AFL Players‘ that the core asset of the AFL is its players and central to this, as key stakeholders of the game, players deserve to continue to have their voices heard on all issues pertaining to themselves and the game. As an advocate for its members and the broader community, AFL Players’ is passionate about instilling a sense of integrity and belonging and showcasing these players as people first and athletes second.

 

I would have thought that was a reasonably good quality board, but on the website nothing about governance or formal reponsibilites, which probably means it is not a high priority. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see this group if they were acting as an independent board that they would be so blatantly acting in the interests of Essendon and the AFL.

 

Gill pulling the purse strings again? That's my guess

Not hard to have a 100% membership when you don't have to pay to be a member.

Like most things associated with the AFL Conflicted

Just now, old dee said:

Not hard to have a 100% membership when you don't have to pay to be a member.

Like most things associated with the AFL Conflicted

Reminds me of being a Uni student.  100% membership of the Australian Union of Students was achieved by having a compulsory fee which we had to pay, whether we wanted to be a member or not.

3 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Marsh's outburst yesterday was totally unbecoming and the frustration shown in his words reflects his organisation's ineptitude in its handling of the matter. He should be one of the first to resign.

I think he is deflecting 'Jack', like a lot of people in public office (and in general) who know they have F....up, he's pushing the blame away from him and his organisation.

There is no doubt in my mind that the AFLPA come out of this whole thing poorly.

Well presented by yourself and 'Dees2014', I hope someone in the media follow this through.

"The PA has grown in influence and size to become a respected champion of players and the game ... AFL Players’ is passionate about instilling a sense of integrity ...."

You'd have to wonder after yesterday's effort whether the Players Association is the slightest bit interested in being a "champion of the game", with a "sense of integrity".

They're just another self-interested trade union.

BREAKING: Workplace union misdirects criticisms, disregards responsibility 

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

While I don't disagree with the sentiments above, don't forget Marsh is an employ of the AFLPA and may just be expressing the views he was asked to present by his Board. I can't recall who is no the AFLPA Board, but I think it's generally accepted they're from the deeper end of the AFL player gene pool.

 

1 hour ago, old dee said:

A fairly thin group then LDC

Or a shallow pool to begin with....

100% membership...

Very similar to North Korea boasting about 100% approval for Kim Jong Un when he's the only candidate in their elections and voting is mandatory.