2 hours ago, Deefiant said:

I don't see the fact that he had suicidal tendencies before having any fact in the matter. I would like to think any workplace would care about the welfare of their employees regardless of their history. Obviously Richmond could have done more to help this kid, although I don't think it's a problem that is isolated to Richmond. I would think that many clubs are lacking in the ability to deal with the welfare of all their players and maybe the AFL need to set up an external program for all players. 

I don't actually think it is or should be the 'responsability' of clubs to look after the welfare of their players.  They certainly shouldn't set up environments which are detrimental to a players welfare, however I don't think it is entirely their duty to manage a players welfare for them.

These are grown (be they mostly fairly young) adults and they need to take certain responsibility for their own actions and wellbeing.  Obviously, it's in everyones best interests for the club to be as supportive as possible, but that is different to them being held to account for managing a players wellfare for them, which it almost seems like this individual has the expectations of.

4 hours ago, Deefiant said:

I don't see the fact that he had suicidal tendencies before having any fact in the matter. I would like to think any workplace would care about the welfare of their employees regardless of their history. Obviously Richmond could have done more to help this kid, although I don't think it's a problem that is isolated to Richmond. I would think that many clubs are lacking in the ability to deal with the welfare of all their players and maybe the AFL need to set up an external program for all players. 

It's entirely relevant. We don't know anything of this story from the club's point of view. What we do know is that there were serious mental health issues that were apparent well before he arrived at the club. That has to be considered when looking at Richmond's overall level of responsibility in terms of contributing towards his anxiety and depression.

Of course every workplace should care about employee welfare regardless of history, that's pointing out the obvious. You are however speculating on exactly what Richmond did or didn't do in this case to help him. The blame game is a dangerous one when you don't have all the facts at hand.

Edited November 2, 20168 yr by P-man

8 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

Why would they make him sign a silence clause?

 

6 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

IF it is the case that Richmond wanted him to sign a Deed of Release upon his 'retirement' from the club, the AFL is duty bound to investigate this.

Such a claim is remarkable, if true.

 

 

4 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

Don't know how you could form a conclusion either way Crystal Dees. As you've said, it seems we know 'none of the facts'.

Plainly there is an issue here. Outbursts such as this are regrettable. And rare. I feel sorry for the kid.

That the club asked a 20 year old to sign a deed of release upon his departure from the club would have to be unusual and, to my mind, it reveals something a bit bigger. I don't expect any of Terlich, Michie, Newton, M Jones or Dawes were asked to sign a deed of release upon being given notice of their delistings.

 

Big jump from if to that Ron...

We don't know the details and a lot are basing their posts on a rant made by a kid who appears to have problems.

Seems like the young man is clearly struggling and feel it's in bad taste discussing it on an opposition teams fan forum. 

6 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

Don't know how you could form a conclusion either way Crystal Dees. As you've said, it seems we know 'none of the facts'.

Plainly there is an issue here. Outbursts such as this are regrettable. And rare. I feel sorry for the kid.

That the club asked a 20 year old to sign a deed of release upon his departure from the club would have to be unusual and, to my mind, it reveals something a bit bigger. I don't expect any of Terlich, Michie, Newton, M Jones or Dawes were asked to sign a deed of release upon being given notice of their delistings.

 

RB why are they/is this regrettable? If it is to call them out for not looking after him and they didn't then good on him.

If they did everything they could to support him but it ends up getting him some further help he needs from family, friends, carers then it has been a positive. 

If nothing more it raises awareness for mental health and gets people talking about help and issues they may have then it may help others see the light.

Sounds like he is in a bad place. Sometimes, no matter the help, those bad thoughts in your head are louder than the rest.

2 hours ago, rjay said:

 

 

Big jump from if to that Ron...

We don't know the details and a lot are basing their posts on a rant made by a kid who appears to have problems.

Replace 'if' for 'that' in my sentence. It matters not to the point I'm making i.e. if/that a club compels a 20 year old player with apparent mental health issues to sign a deed of release in the circumstances alleged here would be an unusual step and one worthy of some further inquiry.

And, in answer to another poster, clubs do absolutely have a responsibility to their players including as to their welfare. Try taking that argument to the players association and see what response you get. As employers, they also have all sorts of general law duties to their employees but everyone I expect knows that.

 

Was a very talented junior.

Now we know why he went at 77 and was very nearly not drafted.

"Not Happy.....Jan"

7 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

Don't know how you could form a conclusion either way Crystal Dees. As you've said, it seems we know 'none of the facts'.

Plainly there is an issue here. Outbursts such as this are regrettable. And rare. I feel sorry for the kid.

That the club asked a 20 year old to sign a deed of release upon his departure from the club would have to be unusual and, to my mind, it reveals something a bit bigger. I don't expect any of Terlich, Michie, Newton, M Jones or Dawes were asked to sign a deed of release upon being given notice of their delistings.

 

Yep, that's my point. This is a very serious health issue that needs to be discussed by the relevant parties in the relevant forum. Demonland does not fit that criteria.

8 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I don't actually think it is or should be the 'responsability' of clubs to look after the welfare of their players.  They certainly shouldn't set up environments which are detrimental to a players welfare, however I don't think it is entirely their duty to manage a players welfare for them.

These are grown (be they mostly fairly young) adults and they need to take certain responsibility for their own actions and wellbeing.  Obviously, it's in everyones best interests for the club to be as supportive as possible, but that is different to them being held to account for managing a players wellfare for them, which it almost seems like this individual has the expectations of.

Most clubs have either a welfare manager and/or a psychologist. It is absolutely incumbent on a club to assist in the welfare of players. I have highlighted the word assist as it is always a two way street - a player must want to be helped.  

It's a fascinating outburst, and I feel for the kid because he obviously has issues.

Calling out the club is one thing, but he mentioned individual people, which is bordering defamatory unless he can prove the accusations. 

Mental health issues are incredibly prevalent amongst the young and not so young. People who have these issues need all the support we can give them. Lets hope that Reece receives that support from professionals and all the compassion and understanding that the rest of us can give him. Forget about what he said, engulf him with love and care.

where is the aflpa in all this? surely they should be the preferred port of call

resorting to facebook and social media is a poor way to sort out problems and fraught with danger

11 hours ago, Crystal Dees said:

Really? You think his outburst is confirmation the club didn't do enough!!! That's a big and very unfair call on Richmond. Would you say the same if it was Melbourne and you knew none of the facts?

I think quite a few were pretty quick to dismiss Brock Mcleans outbursts on tanking without knowing any of the facts. Not saying you did that, just pointing out an example of a club screwing up and a player going public on it.

 

9 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I don't actually think it is or should be the 'responsability' of clubs to look after the welfare of their players.  They certainly shouldn't set up environments which are detrimental to a players welfare, however I don't think it is entirely their duty to manage a players welfare for them.

These are grown (be they mostly fairly young) adults and they need to take certain responsibility for their own actions and wellbeing.  Obviously, it's in everyones best interests for the club to be as supportive as possible, but that is different to them being held to account for managing a players wellfare for them, which it almost seems like this individual has the expectations of.

Unfortunately, you would find that a lot of football clubs are detrimental to a players welfare - as a regular worker you don't have weekly meetings to discuss your performance in depth. All it takes is for you to be having a bad week and for a coach to pull you aside and tell you you're not giving your all, that you're pathetic etc. Even worse if the coach doesn't pull you aside, but rather uses you as an example in front of the team. These sort of occurrences (which are regular at all clubs) are exactly why it is the responsibility of clubs to provide appropriate player welfare.

1 hour ago, Beats said:

I think quite a few were pretty quick to dismiss Brock Mcleans outbursts on tanking without knowing any of the facts. Not saying you did that, just pointing out an example of a club screwing up and a player going public on it.

 

Unfortunately, you would find that a lot of football clubs are detrimental to a players welfare - as a regular worker you don't have weekly meetings to discuss your performance in depth. All it takes is for you to be having a bad week and for a coach to pull you aside and tell you you're not giving your all, that you're pathetic etc. Even worse if the coach doesn't pull you aside, but rather uses you as an example in front of the team. These sort of occurrences (which are regular at all clubs) are exactly why it is the responsibility of clubs to provide appropriate player welfare.

Do you know this or are you reminiscing to the bad old days?  

Modern coaching involves a lot of "people management" not just tactics and motivation.

Whilst I suspect that someone like Neeld would do this, do you know that eg say Goodwin or Beveridge would regularly single out players in front of the group?  

Big call. 

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

Do you know this or are you reminiscing to the bad old days?  

Modern coaching involves a lot of "people management" not just tactics and motivation.

Whilst I suspect that someone like Neeld would do this, do you know that eg say Goodwin or Beveridge would regularly single out players in front of the group?  

Big call. 

Is it a big call? They spend hours reviewing game day footage, both 1 on 1 with coaches and in group meetings, that's a known. To say that a player doing something wrong isn't used as an example in learning exercises doesn't seem like a big call. I don't think that it's much of a stretch from that point to say that some players take it in their stride and learn from it, while others see it as constant criticism and it gets them down. I think Goodwin or Beveridge would single someone out in front of the group, if someone does something wrong, they would stop an exercise at training, call everyone in and point out what was done wrong and how to improve it. I would think that Goodwin or Beveridge would do it in a better manner than the likes of a Neeld, but that it would still be done, I've certainly seen it done in training in the last few years.

Edited November 3, 20168 yr by Beats

4 hours ago, monoccular said:

Whilst I suspect that someone like Neeld would do this, do you know that eg say Goodwin or Beveridge would regularly single out players in front of the group?  

I watched Roos go off his head at Jack Viney at training, does this count? He only did it occasionally in the times I watched him at training, but when he did, he really went off.

Neeld actually didn't go off nearly as much, an urban myth perpetuated on here perhaps, he was very controlled at training, perhaps that was one of the issues he had

Edited November 3, 20168 yr by Satyriconhome

Enough has been said about this subject.

Locked