Retired 14. Liam Jones

Remove this Banner Ad

The Great Ian said:
Given the AFL vaccination rules were announced a week following player trades, I’d expect the club to be demanding draft compensation. Maybe an end of second round pick ?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

i dont expect anything, rules are the same for all clubs, so far we are the only one with someone who doesnt want the jab and its no different to any other retirement
 
Putting personal opinions aside, what a mess this one is.
Id be interested to know if the contracts mention being agreeable to whatever recommended medical advice is given. Hes had surgeries and things before. If there isnt anything specifically mentioned, surely he is entitled to a payout if the conditions of his employment have changed?
The AFL surely hands over a compensation pick for this. Im interested to see which one though. He is a best 22 player for a start, but also considering its mid November, should there be compensation to help cover for the fact its not something the Blues have planned for?
 
ItsAllAboutMe said:
Gary Lyon made the point that he signed a contract that didnt have a clause around vaccination, it was Carlton/AFL that changed the conditions of this contract and if challenged could open a legal Pandora's box that the AFL would not want to go down.
Click to expand...

Nah, there will be some catch all in the contract about it being subject to the prevailing rules/conditions of playing the AFL and/or reasonable directions of the employer/league.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

FRUMPY said:
i dont expect anything, rules are the same for all clubs, so far we are the only one with someone who doesnt want the jab and its no different to any other retirement
Click to expand...

It is very different to "just another" retirement. It is a retirement as a consequence of yet another hastily implemented AFL rule.

For the record I don't disagree with the rule in this environment but it is so typical of the AFL to implement rules such as this without thinking through the implications.

Is it too hard to put contingency plans in place if a new rule was to force a premature retirement?

Even if we wish to replace Liam through the draft we cannot as we only have 3 picks and 2, it seems, are slotted for rookie elevations.

I think this should be addressed using the FA compensation structure but I doubt we would get much even then due to Jones' age.

Is it too late to replace him out of DFA's?
 
blue healer said:
It is very different to "just another" retirement. It is a retirement as a consequence of yet another hastily implemented AFL rule.

For the record I don't disagree with the rule in this environment but it is so typical of the AFL to implement rules such as this without thinking through the implications.

Is it too hard to put contingency plans in place if a new rule was to force a premature retirement?

Even if we wish to replace Liam through the draft we cannot as we only have 3 picks and 2, it seems, are slotted for rookie elevations.

I think this should be addressed using the FA compensation structure but I doubt we would get much even then due to Jones' age.

Is it too late to replace him out of DFA's?
Click to expand...

na its the same as any other retirement - we'll get an extra pick at the end of the draft and if we want to use it we will or else sign someone else after we let them train with us for a while. Simple solutions - not the end of the world
 
blue healer said:
It is very different to "just another" retirement. It is a retirement as a consequence of yet another hastily implemented AFL rule.

For the record I don't disagree with the rule in this environment but it is so typical of the AFL to implement rules such as this without thinking through the implications.

Is it too hard to put contingency plans in place if a new rule was to force a premature retirement?

Even if we wish to replace Liam through the draft we cannot as we only have 3 picks and 2, it seems, are slotted for rookie elevations.

I think this should be addressed using the FA compensation structure but I doubt we would get much even then due to Jones' age.

Is it too late to replace him out of DFA's?
Click to expand...

Aside from being completely wrong about the rule, you're also wrong about our picks.
We have 5 before Rookie Upgrades, not 3. It's just that we're choosing to go with 36 on the Senior List rather than 38.
 
branedotorg said:
it's a bit different, 7.5 BILLION people have now had at least one covid-19 vaccine, given under controlled, open circumstances.

the essendon thing was done in secret, by a non-medical professional and apparently with no records of who took what and when.
Click to expand...
Did you just copy and past the population clock?
 
ItsAllAboutMe said:
Gary Lyon made the point that he signed a contract that didnt have a clause around vaccination, it was Carlton/AFL that changed the conditions of this contract and if challenged could open a legal Pandora's box that the AFL would not want to go down.
Click to expand...

Employment lawyer here.

The contract will have express terms about following lawful and reasonable directions and complying with any government or league policies about playing. To the extent those terms are not express in the contract they will be implied by law.

Bottom line is Liam has a contract where he agrees to play in exchange for money. If he is unable or unwilling to perform his end of the bargain then there is no obligation to pay him. Any payout or settlement would be to ease the burden and/or avoid a dispute, not because he has any entitlement.
 
I’m hoping for end 1st or a 2nd pick after our current and only pick it would only be a fair compensation to our team for loss of starting 22 quality player , especially considering this mess is not of CFC doing.
Reasonable & acceptable to remainder of the competition also, AFL continues to over regulate, it’s become a farce.
Only difference in this instance Government is involved too.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Stamos said:
Aside from being completely wrong about the rule, you're also wrong about our picks.
We have 5 before Rookie Upgrades, not 3. It's just that we're choosing to go with 36 on the Senior List rather than 38.
Click to expand...

Funny thing, I just googled indicative draft picks and the AFL's own website says we have 25, 64 and 82. I don't really care what we are choosing to do, we do not have anything beyond 82 at this point.

How am I wrong about the rule?
 
How long will it be before someone claims through the legal system, that this is an unfair restriction of trade?

BTW, going back some time, I was one that couldn't see why we brought Jones into the club. It seemed a daft move at the time but turned out to be a legendary one. Well done Jonesy I just hope you don't finish up landlocked in Victoria for the rest of your days.
 
FRUMPY said:
oh he is from essendon, ill bring up their drug history..... :rolleyes:

got nothing to do with essendon or their jab factory.
Click to expand...
Given your unremitting joy when pointing out Carlton supporters' hypocrisy, this is an exceedingly odd take.
 
Last edited:
bmaurizio said:
I’m hoping for end 1st or a 2nd pick after our current and only pick it would only be a fair compensation to our team for loss of starting 22 quality player , especially considering this mess is not of CFC doing.
Reasonable & acceptable to remainder of the competition also, AFL continues to over regulate, it’s become a farce.
Only difference in this instance Government is involved too.
Click to expand...

may as well ask for pick 1 🤣
 
FRUMPY said:
na its the same as any other retirement - we'll get an extra pick at the end of the draft and if we want to use it we will or else sign someone else after we let them train with us for a while. Simple solutions - not the end of the world
Click to expand...

Another pick at the end of the draft would be as handy as a flyscreen on a submarine and I do agree it's not the end of the world.

My main concern is the inability of the AFL to do something as basic as a "what if" analysis when implementing new rules.

What do you think the reaction would be if the players name was Josh Kelly?

A highly unlikely scenario but not impossible. Looking at the slowdown in vax rates it seems probable that there will be about 3% of the population who won't get vaxed. Could (although won't) be as many as 20 AFL players who refuse. As I said it's highly unlikely but still something that the AFL should have considered.
 
blue healer said:
Another pick at the end of the draft would be as handy as a flyscreen on a submarine and I do agree it's not the end of the world.

My main concern is the inability of the AFL to do something as basic as a "what if" analysis when implementing new rules.

What do you think the reaction would be if the players name was Josh Kelly?

A highly unlikely scenario but not impossible. Looking at the slowdown in vax rates it seems probable that there will be about 3% of the population who won't get vaxed. Could (although won't) be as many as 20 AFL players who refuse. As I said it's highly unlikely but still something that the AFL should have considered.
Click to expand...

Oh here we go, the AFL hates carlton rubbish again.

If it was Kelly or anyone else, it would be and will be the same - player cant play. Its then up to that player what they do, and Jones has quit (after working out how much he is happy to get paid for quitting)
 
Footscray Tech FC said:
Employment lawyer here.

The contract will have express terms about following lawful and reasonable directions and complying with any government or league policies about playing. To the extent those terms are not express in the contract they will be implied by law.

Bottom line is Liam has a contract where he agrees to play in exchange for money. If he is unable or unwilling to perform his end of the bargain then there is no obligation to pay him. Any payout or settlement would be to ease the burden and/or avoid a dispute, not because he has any entitlement.
Click to expand...
Sounds like what has happened in this case. Didnt Brad Lloyd indicate there was some payout involved.
 
FRUMPY said:
Oh here we go, the AFL hates carlton rubbish again.

If it was Kelly or anyone else, it would be and will be the same - player cant play. Its then up to that player what they do, and Jones has quit (after working out how much he is happy to get paid for quitting)
Click to expand...

I have never said, and don't believe the crap, that the AFL hates Carlton but I have, for a long time now, believed that the AFL has almost zero capability to plan for the rule changes it decides to implement.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Retired 14. Liam Jones

Similar threads

Aphrodite
Senior 14. Orazio Fantasia
2 3 4 5
Replies
108
Views
10K
Aphrodite
Aphrodite

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top