12 hours ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

The face only a mother could love. Imagine bringing that home to show your parents. 

I agree. Jon Ralph is ugly. 

I don't know but I kind of find it strange how behavioural clauses of any kind are apparently frowned upon in contracts. It all depends on what they wre exactly but are Collingwood not within their rights to demand a certain level of behaviour from someone they have been faithful to when they probably could have sacked him? 

A bunch of Collingwood fans I know were saying during the year that they would only keep De Goey if the club 'laid down the law' to him and gave him a modest offer. Now a selection of media is going crazy and questioning the audacity of Collingwood to put an offer like this in front of Jordan. I don't necessarily think Jordan should have accepted it but my word there has been a massive over correction from these experts. 

Edited September 27, 20222 yr by layzie

If the AFL used the 'bringing the game into disrepute' rule a club wouldn't need 'behavioral' clauses.

It is another example football clubs' and the AFL's 'optics' management and inaction on social behaviour breaches coming home to roost.

54 minutes ago, layzie said:

I don't know but I kind of find it strange how behavioral clauses of any kind are apparently frowned upon in contracts. It all depends on what they were exactly but are Collingwood not within their rights to demand a certain level of behaviour from someone they have been faithful to when they probably could have sacked him? 

A bunch of Collingwood fans I know were saying during the year that they would only keep De Goey if the club 'laid down the law' to him and gave him a modest offer. Now a selection of media is going crazy and questioning the audacity of Collingwood to put an offer like this in front of Jordan. I don't necessarily think Jordan should have accepted it but my word there has been a massive over correction from these experts. 

My question then is: Who comes first; the Club ( meaning the history and the greater Game) or a player who has faulted in his playing days over and over again. ?  

Honestly it is a no brainer in that the Club is greater than the individual player and by that I am saying he should be a reliable cog in the wheel. So, yes - terms of a contact should encompass both the on field ability, the term and the conditions of his employment.

1 hour ago, layzie said:

I don't know but I kind of find it strange how behavioural clauses of any kind are apparently frowned upon in contracts.

the problem with them is that they're so subjective, like how can u have a clause like that be so black and white in nature, obviously it won't cover every specific possible scenario in depth so it gives the club so much power to just cut the deal whenever they please because of "behaviour" and they can sort of decide what is or isn't behaviour yknow so it makes sense for any player to know exactly the criteria they need to work between to fulfil their contract obligations and this isn't afforded to JDG here 

9 minutes ago, Turner said:

the problem with them is that they're so subjective, like how can u have a clause like that be so black and white in nature, obviously it won't cover every specific possible scenario in depth so it gives the club so much power to just cut the deal whenever they please because of "behaviour" and they can sort of decide what is or isn't behaviour yknow so it makes sense for any player to know exactly the criteria they need to work between to fulfil their contract obligations and this isn't afforded to JDG here 

Turner I agree.

Who is the arbiter of behaviour? 

Exactly what behaviours are unacceptable?

What are a players rights if the club misbehaves? (Essendon or Hawthorn maybe)

I think all contracts should have the same behaviour clauses, it is then a matter of enforcement. And the problem is clubs have favourites.

18 hours ago, deelusions from afar said:

Out of interest, if a player such as JDG did breach the behavioural standards in their contract and (due to pressure from sponsors) the pies decide to rely on the clause and sack him.

If St Kilda still want him the next season do they have to trade with Collingwood or do they draft him or ??

If they terminate his contract he is a free agent.

Most likely they would stand him down till the end of the year then trade.  The clauses would be more financial than sacking.  More likely suspension

Are we making a play at him? He would be unbelievable if we could straighten him out. 

Just now, SPC said:

Are we making a play at him? He would be unbelievable if we could straighten him out. 

He's a pretzel.

20 minutes ago, ManDee said:

He's a pretzel.

Stengle was a pretzel- no way Geelong do as well this year without him. Understand it’s a lesser risk, but fortunate favours the brave and we need improvement in our forward half. 

6 minutes ago, SPC said:

Stengle was a pretzel- no way Geelong do as well this year without him. Understand it’s a lesser risk, but fortunate favours the brave and we need improvement in our forward half. 

Rightly or wrongly Stengle was seen as a young man from a difficult upbringing who deserved a second chance after being booted from the afl system.

De Goey comes from a privileged background, is older and hasn’t hit rock bottom. Combine that with the much greater risk in terms of dollars and it’s just not worth it 

I’m not convinced his recent behaviour has been as bad as the media makes out, but the fact he hasn’t stopped putting himself in dramatic situations is a concern. 

If he didn’t think he was likely to be a bad boy again, why not sign as a show of good intent?  I understand the fairness issue, but saying no to behave yourself is how this rejection could be perceived, rather than saying no to an unfair set of clauses.  

56 minutes ago, Turner said:

the problem with them is that they're so subjective, like how can u have a clause like that be so black and white in nature, obviously it won't cover every specific possible scenario in depth so it gives the club so much power to just cut the deal whenever they please because of "behaviour" and they can sort of decide what is or isn't behaviour yknow so it makes sense for any player to know exactly the criteria they need to work between to fulfil their contract obligations and this isn't afforded to JDG here 

Yeah that is true. I would just like to see a little more protection for the clubs. It really is a players' league these days. 

14 hours ago, dee-tox said:

Is DeGoey's father still his manager? If so, all this behavioural clause baloney could have been avoided if his did his job as a father!

brother in law

who is a firefighter

number of commentators now supporting gooey not accepting clause

saying there is a catch-all clause simply saying club can terminate if they deem it necessary

Why are the Pies bothering with these clauses?

The last time he got put in jail in New York, they didn't even punish him, so obviously he hasn't changed his ways

15 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

number of commentators now supporting gooey not accepting clause

saying there is a catch-all clause simply saying club can terminate if they deem it necessary

3 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

don't shoot the messenger     i don't give a fig either way

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/no-way-jordan-should-sign-pies-bad-behaviour-clause-that-should-never-be-permissible-revealed/news-story/efba5a9502b099af9c36eb9946836fc4

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2022/09/27/that-is-the-ultimate-edmund-reveals-specifics-of-catch-all-de-goey-contract/

33 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

brother in law

who is a firefighter

Appropriate.

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

don't shoot the messenger     i don't give a fig either way

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/no-way-jordan-should-sign-pies-bad-behaviour-clause-that-should-never-be-permissible-revealed/news-story/efba5a9502b099af9c36eb9946836fc4

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2022/09/27/that-is-the-ultimate-edmund-reveals-specifics-of-catch-all-de-goey-contract/

I rate Sam Edmund, but he just seems a bit all over the place with this one to me.

He says: “That is the ultimate catch-all clause."

Then says: “I think Collingwood will – if they haven’t already – give some ground up when it comes to some specific behavioural clauses to this Jordan De Goey contract.”

Is it a "catch-all" or is it very "specific"?

Can we PLEASE stop comparing De Goey to May?

FFS having a drunken fight with a teammate is on a completely different level to SEXUAL ASSAULT. 

How anyone can put our AA defender in the same 'bad boy/ cultural cancer' bucket as a guy who has displayed actual criminal behaviour is beyond me and is frankly disrespectful to May.

And to those suggesting we chase him, what for? He doesn't fill any gaps we have, and would eat up significant money and resources. No thanks. 

Hard pass from me. Would honestly make me reconsider buying membership. Terrific footballer, absolute waste of oxygen as a human.

 

Don’t you love sport!… where you can be a complete [censored] of society and people still celebrate you!

If Collingwood had balls and were strong, you [censored] off DeGoey and keep Grundy!

I really hope the Collingwood supporters look at this as letting go of Grundy for De Goey.

Then Brodie can become a multiple premiership player at Melbourne, and Jordy will do something dumb in February and waste their cash.