Rhino Richards

Well done Jim. A sensible decision and all the best for the future. Thanks for what you have contributed to MFC over the years

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

And given there is already a Luke Ball thread going, the Barry Prendegast thread has been closed.

What was done was within the draft rules. You have not through all the dross put up one plausible step that the AFL coulda/shoulda undertaken. There were no rules changes in this instance. And it is nothing like the Judd decision. By entering the draft he risked being drafted on a relatively unknown basis (no health check and no preparedness to play with the selecting Club). You have just carried on like a cut cat who cant understand or accept the issues at play.

Given you claim you understand the privacy aspects of medical records, I cant believe you asked such a naive question. Breath taking really. And the answer is.....Because he can. The records are private and can only be released with the individuals consent. Got it? Ball only released his records to Collingwood. Its irrelevant in regard to what happened at the time of the drafting. But once again McLean is a reasonable reference points about risks of players breaking down. 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.

Not all draft players have a recognised and sustained OP issue and are therefore are subject to medical clearance. Ball chose Collingwood and gave them access to his medical records only. And given the concern over Ball's health its no wonder they shot him off to Arizona for special training. Its unbelievable despite what has been clearly and repeatedly explained to you by a number of posters that you still try and peddle illogical and poorly thought through conspiracy theories. And no you dont understand them at all. if you did you would pose such flimsy and ill informed arguments.

Federer doesnt make an audible sound, but Nadal and Novak did. While I understand the extreme exertion of the combatants if they ban the screech for the women then dont they have to ban to grunt for the guys?? I am thinking there will be an official with a decibel meter that puts his hand up at any time during a point that a screech or grunt gets above XX dbs. Its a hard law to frame and hard to police.

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.

Yes the AFL should have breached fundamental privacy rights of the individual and forced him to release them. There is no way the AFL could have done that without causing a huge legal, ethical and community storm. You dont understand the privacy laws and employment laws.

Any chance you can sustantiate what Collingwood has done wrong? You've accused them repeatedly but given nothing as usual. You just cut they made a deal with Ball. If it had been MFC you would have thought it smart.And given you have already denied making rock solid statements its ironic you chide others. Dont overdo it on the pills now

Ha ha. What big indignation you have! You cant put a finger on what Collingwood did wrong because they did not do anything wrong. I agree you dont understand it. And thanks for the tip on the Age article. I have already read. I did learn something from it. You will understand free agency as well as you understand the Luke Ball situation, impact of debt and a whole host of the topics. One continuum of pretence and smoke and mirrors that has only you fooled.

You said that the lack of access to medical records is what makes a farce of the draft in post #109. I explained why it was so? Now you are saying that it does not explain the farce of the draft. Thanks you have establish you dont understand. And all the melodrama,hyperbole contempt you can muster can do little to camouflage it.

No it isnt at all. A players medical records are the private property of that person. They have no legal right for public dissemination without the individual's consent. Ball gave consent to only Collingwood. If anyone else had access to Balls records its a serious breach of medical ethics and the law Brock McLean was confident he was ready to go to. There were no assurances. Luke Ball did as he pleased. And you have resorted to another conspiracy theory to try and fill the yawning gap in your understanding of the issues. Its scary how little you do actually understand. And you will be the last person to realise it.

Clearly you dont. Collingwood did nothing wrong. They put a good deal package to Ball which include a shot at a flag within 2 years. Ball did not want to deal with anyone else. He refused to talk to anyone else. What's so hard about what has happened? Its so basic yet do not get it and play a pretence of conspiracy. I doubt whether you will understand what free agency will mean and you wont have the gumption to learn. You dont understand what the Ball situation was. Its another case of too many opinions without an iota of facts or understanding.

I was wrong

No it doesnt. The Filth would not have offered him a large contract had they not been privy to his medical records. Only Collingwood were given access to those records. They would not have touched on blind faith. And the risk of doing that was evidence with the howler of a deal Carlton did on McLean. All the soft tissue injuries and the modified training programs could and should have been identified. The MCC connection is an important connection but take it in its proper context and dont oversell it.

Ball and Collingwood front loaded his contract. MFC front loads the contracts for most of its players. Other Clubs front load their players contracts to better manage their salary cap. Its been happening for some time. I am sorry you had not realised or understood that. Might learn something

They actually do often grunt and make a loud audible sound when they serve. Its not high pitched. Notwithstanding the extreme quality of the play, many of the rallies with great shots were a case of grunt 1 vs grunt 2.

Your posting suggests otherwise. The course of action is not directly sanctioned by the AFL (Lack of understanding there on your part). There were issues particular to Ball as I previously mentioned. First the health risk and second the player risk (agreeing to actually play). This is the first time an experienced AFL footballer has done this. So it hardly degrades the draft as a process. However the advent of free agency will open avenues for experienced players to achieve destination outcomes. Any contribution of the MCC is very welcome to MFC but it wont in itself keep the wolves from our door. Its one source of support but it is not a bottomless pit. Under the current arrangements the MCC have no obligation to pick up the tab on MFC if we are at risk financially. MFC still need to develop a wide arrangement of revenue streams to afford to compete with the best in the competition. Its still a long way off that. And we continue to live hand to mouth were all revenue is consumed in the battle to be a top AFL club. MFC survival and the survival of a number of clubs depends the further development of AFL as a national code and with that the continued financial largesse that comes from the sale of the TV rights.

Certainly was not placing weight on games played but he was subject to extensive medical testing by Collingwood prior to agreement. If I a person said that they would not speak to us in response to continual requests for discussion i dont know if we had much of a choice in actually finding out what his issues were with MFC. We did not get an opportunity to speak with Ball. Clark chose to speak with us and we did a good job. It is subjective at best but if we had been given a chance to speak with Ball or his management about what MFC could offer I would accept your perspective that possibly we could have done things better or differently.