News Jack Darling resumes with WCE

[Bender_]

Clown College?

The Eagles have been holding him back from his dream for too long!

 

[Obeanie1]

So basically we can go on a crime spree and because we can't attend a courthouse due to being unvaccinated we can't be prosecuted - right Impunity!?

Nah. You are remanded in custody until you get vaccinated.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

Hearsay is being read as fact and now our Premiership Forward is being discussed in such insulting terms. He seems to be making a silly decision, but without knowing the FACTS, why have such vicious and aggressive reactions?

There are facts we absolutely know...

We know he hasn't been vaccinated. And we know his medical exemption has been rejected by the AFL, therefore he doesn't have a legitimate excuse. Given the vaccine mandate and the dose 2 schedule, we also know that even if he agreed to be vaccinated right now, he'll still be missing games.

As far as I'm concerned, there are enough facts to form a pretty solid opinion.

We also know that Darling has refused to publicly disclose his reasons for not getting vaccinated. That's his right, of course. He's welcome to keep his situation private. But given we know he doesn't have a legitimate medical reason, it's difficult to have much sympathy for him... but I'm struggling to think of anything he could possibly say that would mitigate the situation.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

WA is an outlier and NT has about 1% of Australia's population. How many people do ypu think are subject to a vaccine mandate for their job, and how many do you think will still be in 6 month's time?

Except, as you noted in your other post... there are vaccine mandates in Victoria as well. Which makes up 25% of the population. So WA is hardly an outlier.

And whether there will a vaccine mandate in 6 months time... why don't we come back to that in six months time.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

There are facts we absolutely know...

We know he hasn't been vaccinated. And we know his medical exemption has been rejected by the AFL, therefore he doesn't have a legitimate excuse. Given the vaccine mandate and the dose 2 schedule, we also know that even if he agreed to be vaccinated right now, he'll still be missing games.

As far as I'm concerned, there are enough facts to form a pretty solid opinion.

We also know that Darling has refused to publicly disclose his reasons for not getting vaccinated. That's his right, of course. He's welcome to keep his situation private. But given we know he doesn't have a legitimate medical reason, it's difficult to have much sympathy for him... but I'm struggling to think of anything he could possibly say that would mitigate the situation.

Hard to see what reason he could have for being the sole AFL player in this limbo position. If there’s roughly 750 players on AFL lists, 747 of them have gotten vaccinated, two (Jones and CEY) have retired and one is holding out for reasons only known to him and, hopefully, the club.

What makes him a special case?

 

[Convocation]

How is the experience of overseas countries relevant to whether Jack Darling should be required to get a Covid vaccine to play AFL in 2022?

16 of the 18 clubs are based in states that don't require incoming domestic travellers to be vaccinated. Outside of Victoria, there are few workplace vaccine mandates, pretty much healthcare and emergency services.

That bolded part is completely false.
I work for a large Global Engineering (Offices in every State) firm, and everyone of our competitors, and companies we work with e.g. property developers, construction firms, Subcontractors, government all have national vaccine mandates. All of the companies (e.g. Insurance Company, Logistics Company, IT Company, Alcohol Supplier (good friend to have), Superannuation company) my friends work for have vaccine mandates nationally.

 

[Obeanie1]

That bolded part is completely false.
I work for a large Global Engineering (Offices in every State) firm, and everyone of our competitors, and companies we work with e.g. property developers, construction firms, Subcontractors, government all have national vaccine mandates. All of the companies (e.g. Insurance Company, Logistics Company, IT Company, Alcohol Supplier (good friend to have), Superannuation company) my friends work for have vaccine mandates nationally.

All those must be outliers as well then.

So if we add up all these outliers with mandates they add up to.........oh 90% of the workforce in Australia.

Oh......that's a majority isn't it? Not an outlier!

Another piece of misinformation busted from the antivacers. I'm shocked to be sitting here.

Lol.

 

[MrKK]

Don't know and don't care.

You seem to have a lot of questions but no answers to support your view. You go get the information.

It's a moot point. That's the law now.

You must know, if you're going to say that I'm blatantly wrong. As industry mandates via government roll off, so will mandates by private businesses. There just won't be a public health justification for them and they'll become a competitive disadvantage.

"That's the law" is the argument for someone who can't justify why the law is in place. None of the major law changes in our history would've occurred with that attitude.

 

[nob2210]

There are facts we absolutely know...

We know he hasn't been vaccinated. And we know his medical exemption has been rejected by the AFL, therefore he doesn't have a legitimate excuse. Given the vaccine mandate and the dose 2 schedule, we also know that even if he agreed to be vaccinated right now, he'll still be missing games.

As far as I'm concerned, there are enough facts to form a pretty solid opinion.

We also know that Darling has refused to publicly disclose his reasons for not getting vaccinated. That's his right, of course. He's welcome to keep his situation private. But given we know he doesn't have a legitimate medical reason, it's difficult to have much sympathy for him... but I'm struggling to think of anything he could possibly say that would mitigate the situation.

For sure, you can form an opinion from that. But should it result in abuse?
Where's the middle ground? Why is he for the majority of people an absolute loser/muppet/even harsher terms, and for the minority, a courageous leader? Why is he not just a person who should be treated with respect, no matter what personal decision he makes...

I agree with the sentiment here, just doesn't seem the be the general consensus when reading this thread.

 

[timeforanother22]

You must know, if you're going to say that I'm blatantly wrong. As industry mandates via government roll off, so will mandates by private businesses. There just won't be a public health justification for them and they'll become a competitive disadvantage.

"That's the law" is the argument for someone who can't justify why the law is in place. None of the major law changes in our history would've occurred with that attitude.

The point is we are living now, not in the future.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

"That's the law" is the argument for someone who can't justify why the law is in place. None of the major law changes in our history would've occurred with that attitude.

The place to justify why the laws have been enacted is the courts. The government mandates have been challenged repeatedly, particularly in NSW and Victoria, and upheld every time. The only case I’m aware of where one was struck down was one involving BHP (or Rio?) where it was ruled they hadn’t properly consulted with the workforce as they were required to do under an enterprise bargaining agreement.

The NSW and Vic mandates have been challenged a number of times, which have required the health officers of those states to give evidence as to the reasons why they were implemented and why they’re an effective measure in a pandemic. In each case the challenge has been dismissed. Look up Kassam v Hazzard and Larter v Hazzard for the NSW cases.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

The place to justify why the laws have been enacted is the courts. The government mandates have been challenged repeatedly, particularly in NSW and Victoria, and upheld every time. The only case I’m aware of where one was struck down was one involving BHP (or Rio?) where it was ruled they hadn’t properly consulted with the workforce as they were required to do under an enterprise bargaining agreement.

The NSW and Vic mandates have been challenged a number of times, which have required the health officers of those states to give evidence as to the reasons why they were implemented and why they’re an effective measure in a pandemic. In each case the challenge has been dismissed. Look up Kassam v Hazzard and Larter v Hazzard for the NSW cases.

And even then the workers admitted they hadn't bothered to read the numerous emails their employer sent out. That ruling still baffles me.

You didn't communicate!
Yes we did, you just don't read your emails!
True, but ...
I rule in favour of the lazy illiterate. Next case!

 

[Ochre]

COVID chat in the COVID thread thanks

 

[Bender_]

For sure, you can form an opinion from that. But should it result in abuse?
Where's the middle ground? Why is he for the majority of people an absolute loser/muppet/even harsher terms, and for the minority, a courageous leader? Why is he not just a person who should be treated with respect, no matter what personal decision he makes...

I agree with the sentiment here, just doesn't seem the be the general consensus when reading this thread.

I think the negatively harsh terms used to describe him by some come from what he embodies for a lot of us at the moment; that he's unwilling to pull his weight. If you viewed the team as a representation of society then it's about right (maybe even an overstatement as he equals about 2.5%), he's like the people we know who refuse to get vaccinated whilst some of us would have preferred to have not got it, we went and did so anyway as we believe it to be the right thing for the greater good*. So like his team mates, we're kinda sitting around thinking "WTF? Why is this guy not putting in like the rest of us?". And I can actually say that it annoys me somewhat to know that I've made the effort and there's people out there that will benefit from that despite not putting in the effort themselves. Then to try an pull a swift playing the workplace injury card just makes it an insult.

FWIW I think some of what's been said about him is a bit much, but I also think he's bearing the frustrations of a vast majority who've had enough of this vax shit and the division it's causing.


*THE GREATER GOOD

 

[Obeanie1]

You must know, if you're going to say that I'm blatantly wrong. As industry mandates via government roll off, so will mandates by private businesses. There just won't be a public health justification for them and they'll become a competitive disadvantage.

"That's the law" is the argument for someone who can't justify why the law is in place. None of the major law changes in our history would've occurred with that attitude.

Your not right now.

And at some point sure, the pandemic will have passed, just like others have, and we return to normal. Emergency powers and mandates will be removed.

If Jack, yourself and others want to ignore the mandates well you pay a price. That price will continue until a) you arent prepared to pay that price or b) when life returns to normal.

So remind us. What exactly is your point?

One day these mandates will be removed? Sure, eventually they will.

 

[Obeanie1]

COVID chat in the COVID thread thanks

Sorry. Wont do it any more.....

 

[Ilkka Sinisalo]

WA is an outlier and NT has about 1% of Australia's population. How many people do ypu think are subject to a vaccine mandate for their job, and how many do you think will still be in 6 month's time?

Why do you think a private employer should not have the right to require its public-figure employees to be vaccinated during a global pandemic? The league is entirely within its rights to not want anti-vax star players who appear on team promotions and advertising to be the subject of media queries. Most (maybe all?) AFL clubs got involved in promoting the vaccination of their players as a way to help encourage vaccination within the broader community. How are the Eagles going to be promoting a pro-vaccine message if one of the club's best and most visible players has refused to get vaccinated and has suffered no repercussions as a result? Furthermore, the league provides high-level health services to all AFL players. Given that we know that unvaccinated people are far more likely to die or suffer ongoing health impacts as a result of contracting the virus, the club and the league are well within their rights to not want to risk having to pay out a lot of money if a highly-compensated player ends up unable to play due to, say, reduced lung capacity from a nasty bout of the virus.

 

[shooshka]

Or we just bank it for next season and use it to land a gun.

Clubs can bank up to 5% of the annual cap and use 105% next year.

Lets call it a one off 'sign up bonus' on top of the annual salary.

The issue being that there are very few free agent guns (excluding ex academy ones and those who get arrested overseas).

Paying out a massive amount in the cap, plus a massive draft hand is poor business. Especially so when the list is in a rebuild stage. We need 4-5 talented players at the end of this year, not just 1. (Obviously there is risk with the draft, but we really are in a position where we need to invest in that risk asap).

On SM-G986B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Ishmael_]

Ofc vaccine mandates will be rolled back, my company's offices in Australia have moved to RAT tests this week. In Sweden we're rolling them back everywhere except aged care. The same thing is happening in parts of the US, other countries etc.

So it will happen, the AFL will be no different, it's a question of time horizon. Will it be a season, two etc? I think one season would have to be the limit for us.

But if you can maintain some level of respectful relationship I wouldn't be discarding Darling to be picked up for nothing by another club next year.

 

[Get_The_Gaff]

The issue being that there are very few free agent guns (excluding ex academy ones and those who get arrested overseas).

Paying out a massive amount in the cap, plus a massive draft hand is poor business. Especially so when the list is in a rebuild stage. We need 4-5 talented players at the end of this year, not just 1. (Obviously there is risk with the draft, but we really are in a position where we need to invest in that risk asap).

On SM-G986B using BigFooty.com mobile app

We would be better off offering a young guy like MacDonald from the swans overs in pay to bring him back before he breaks out .

The fact we can only offer a future 1st is in our favour .

 

[Tyberious Funk]

You must know, if you're going to say that I'm blatantly wrong. As industry mandates via government roll off, so will mandates by private businesses. There just won't be a public health justification for them and they'll become a competitive disadvantage.

"That's the law" is the argument for someone who can't justify why the law is in place. None of the major law changes in our history would've occurred with that attitude.

Either you are missing the point, or being deliberately obtuse.

It's the law... now. All of your arguments are based on speculation about the future. You conflate people's position about the situation right now versus what you are speculating will happen. Of course, if the need for vaccines subsides, so will the need for the corresponding mandates. But that's not the situation we are facing right now. Back in November, delta numbers were dropping and everything was looking good. A few months later, and we had a 'code brown' here in Victoria and all medical staff were being called back from leave. We have literally no idea if/when the next variant will hit and what the impact might be.

In any event, what happens in the future is irrelevant to the situation Darling faces right now. His employer (the AFL) has issued a legally enforceable directive. It was a directive that was developed in consultation with the Player's Association, and 99.6% of players have complied with it. In any other organisation, Darling would most likely have been fired by now. And fair enough too -- he's effectively refusing to show up at work, for no justifiable reason.

 

[Godfather32]

How is the experience of overseas countries relevant to whether Jack Darling should be required to get a Covid vaccine to play AFL in 2022?

16 of the 18 clubs are based in states that don't require incoming domestic travellers to be vaccinated. Outside of Victoria, there are few workplace vaccine mandates, pretty much healthcare and emergency services.

At this point I don't think it matters if the vaccine mandates are removed later in the year, I doubt he'll be welcome back round the club. He's shown himself to be giant me-first douche and lost the trust of the rest of the team. The bloke's dumber than a box of rocks, we're better off without him

 

[MrKK]

The point is we are living now, not in the future.

Either you are missing the point, or being deliberately obtuse.

It's the law... now. All of your arguments are based on speculation about the future. You conflate people's position about the situation right now versus what you are speculating will happen. Of course, if the need for vaccines subsides, so will the need for the corresponding mandates. But that's not the situation we are facing right now. Back in November, delta numbers were dropping and everything was looking good. A few months later, and we had a 'code brown' here in Victoria and all medical staff were being called back from leave. We have literally no idea if/when the next variant will hit and what the impact might be.

In any event, what happens in the future is irrelevant to the situation Darling faces right now. His employer (the AFL) has issued a legally enforceable directive. It was a directive that was developed in consultation with the Player's Association, and 99.6% of players have complied with it. In any other organisation, Darling would most likely have been fired by now. And fair enough too -- he's effectively refusing to show up at work, for no justifiable reason.

We're making a list management decision about a key player contracted until 2025. I sure as hell hope we're thinking as much about the future as the present.

 

[Doashuey]

We're making a list management decision about a key player contracted until 2025. I sure as hell hope we're thinking as much about the future as the present.

Ignoring the fact you have swung the argument around to this because you have been backed into a corner about your previously false statements. Let's say this is your key argument.
We have a player who has refused to vaccinate so won't play this year. He had a fairly ordinary year last year and will be 31 and won't have played a game in about 18 months come season 2023. From all reports we know he has also refused communication with the club and his playing group. There is also a fair indication that he is claiming mental illness in order to get paid his full $700 K per annum while providing 0 output and has lawyered up to fight the club over his contract of which he refuses to fulfill.
Do we want to continue to pay this bloke 3/4 M a year for the next 4 years? I hope we are thinking about the future because if these assumptions are correct, and I believe most of them are, then there is no way on hell I would have this bloke on our list.
****. Him . Off.

 

[MrKK]

Ignoring the fact you have swung the argument around to this because you have been backed into a corner about your previously false statements. Let's say this is your key argument.
We have a player who has refused to vaccinate so won't play this year. He had a fairly ordinary year last year and will be 31 and won't have played a game in about 18 months come season 2023. From all reports we know he has also refused communication with the club and his playing group. There is also a fair indication that he is claiming mental illness in order to get paid his full $700 K per annum while providing 0 output and has lawyered up to fight the club over his contract of which he refuses to fulfill.
Do we want to continue to pay this bloke 3/4 M a year for the next 4 years? I hope we are thinking about the future because if these assumptions are correct, and I believe most of them are, then there is no way on hell I would have this bloke on our list.
fu**. Him . Off.

I haven't been backed into any corner. My argument has always been that these mandates have passed whatever usefulness they might’ve had and their lifespan is going to be shorter than most in this thread think. And we need to plan for what we do with Darling when that happens; if we don't want him, someone else will.