Player Watch Jordan De Goey

[mike123]

So he's suspended until he convince teammates he changed? So theoretically he can still play round one. I don't mind that.

 

[sideswipe]

I don't think you will sway many people, myself included, with the argument that a heavy penalty for drink driving is unwarranted by drawing a comparison to deficient punishments in other careers.

I think the point was more along the lines of questioning why AFL players appear to be held to a higher standard of off field/out of office behaviour than judges, MPs, etc.

Gee it will be interesting to see how he goes when he does get back in the team.

 

[magpie_marty]

I wonder what would happen if Eddie or Buckley went for DUI ?

 

[Gone Critical]

I have children and if they f*ck up at school and get a punishment, that doesn't preclude me from dishing one out when they get home.

The school might be concerned with the letter of the law, I might be concerned about immaturity and trust and dock their pocket money.

So you are thinking the Collingwood football club should be defacto parents to their players.

Well we do live in a nanny state so maybe.

 

[Pies2017]

Why? According to you and Gone Critical it is totally irrelevant

Was that entrapment?

 

[Scodog10]

I wonder what would happen if Eddie or Buckley went for DUI ?

It’s probably not worth speculating on, but given this outcome and their standing as leaders of the club they’d probably need to stand down from their roles.

 

[Gone Critical]

It’s probably not worth speculating on, but given this outcome and their standing as leaders of the club they’d probably need to stand down from their roles.

Betcha they wouldnt

 

[MarkT2]

Leaving it to the law is all good and well but Collingwood is a brand whether you like it or not. When someone acts like a bit of a goose that reflects poorly on the 'brand', effects sponsorship and member loyalty.

Sorry to pick a small piece of a larger post out of context but this is a misnomer IMO.

Yes Collingwood is a brand and yes everything that happens to or within that brand can impact perception of the brand but the degree to which something like this damages a brand is hugely overstated and fuelled by the advertising industry and dumb journo's who believe everything they hear from people that are smarter than themselves.

To make up a scale, if branding is measured out of 100 something like this might take away 5 points as a 1 off. Repeat occasions more and more. Wining a flag adds maybe 50+ points. That's the context of club decisions that I would love to see my club take when making decisions. In regards to sponsors, social conscious sponsors like TAC aside, not many would care about a DD offense or a minor punch-up in a pub . There are two reasons to sponsor a footy club. It's either your barrack for them and are much more about winning flags than anything else - these sponsors generally don't get full value for money - or you want exposure to eyes and ears worth more than the cost. These offenses don't take away from that.

The concept of brand damage is about what the brand represents. I doubt many people, of average intelligence or above actually think a player doing something stupid is a reflection of the clubs values or brand. Maybe on WCE drug scale that changes but that's not this context.

 

[Pies2017]

This is why I’m disappointed. As a club they absolutely knew of the type of people he was hanging around with and the questionable decisions he was making.

All this decision has done now is confirm that it took an incident for us to actually act on it. I feel like club and player have let us down equally and it just continues the frustration of the past few years!

This is something I don’t understand from some posters. You say the club would know who he’s hanging out with, I don’t disagree but I don’t know that either. If we assume they do, and they turn a blind eye, and don’t intervene in the player’s social life, as some people are suggesting, then the player spirals down and becomes a liability to the club (Gardner and Cousins), how does the club respond when questioned on what action they took on the information they had?

 

[PieBeast]

Shape in or ship out.

A decision that leaves absolutely no doubt what the Club thinks about De Goey as a person and his off field antics and at the same time gives him a chance for redemption.

What's there not to like?

 

[Gone Critical]

Sorry to pick a small piece of a larger post out of context but this is a misnomer IMO.

Yes Collingwood is a brand and yes everything that happens to or within that brand can impact perception of the brand but the degree to which something like this damages a brand is hugely overstated and fuelled by the advertising industry and dumb journo's who believe everything they hear from people that are smarter than themselves.

To make up a scale, if branding is measured out of 100 something like this might take away 5 points as a 1 off. Repeat occasions more and more. Wining a flag adds maybe 50+ points. That's the context of club decisions that I would love to see my club take when making decisions. In regards to sponsors, social conscious sponsors like TAC aside, not many would care about a DD offense or a minor punch-up in a pub . There are two reasons to sponsor a footy club. It's either your barrack for them and are much more about winning flags than anything else - these sponsors generally don't get full value for money - or you want exposure to eyes and ears worth more than the cost. These offenses don't take away from that.

The concept of brand damage is about what the brand represents. I doubt many people, of average intelligence or above actually think a player doing something stupid is a reflection of the clubs values or brand. Maybe on WCE drug scale that changes but that's not this context.

Agree this damage to sponsors is overstated and needs top be thought about more rationally rather than the knee jerk

 

[soreplums]

Many organisations have clauses in their employees’ contracts that state that you can’t can’t partake in activities that may damage the reputation of the company.

I remember a few years back some employees got the sack being caught walking out of a strip club during their lunch break.

Like many have said, there is more to it than just drink driving. The kid has a problem with alcohol- this is what needs to be addressed- along with the risks associated with excessive drinking.

I’m happy with the 10k fine- if possible, would have included another 10k suspended along with the donation. I like some of the other consequences he has been given.

I’ve never been convinced that a playing ban serves any positive outcome unless he is cheating his team mates in agreed practices.

 

[Pies2017]

Sorry to pick a small piece of a larger post out of context but this is a misnomer IMO.

Yes Collingwood is a brand and yes everything that happens to or within that brand can impact perception of the brand but the degree to which something like this damages a brand is hugely overstated and fuelled by the advertising industry and dumb journo's who believe everything they hear from people that are smarter than themselves.

To make up a scale, if branding is measured out of 100 something like this might take away 5 points as a 1 off. Repeat occasions more and more. Wining a flag adds maybe 50+ points. That's the context of club decisions that I would love to see my club take when making decisions. In regards to sponsors, social conscious sponsors like TAC aside, not many would care about a DD offense or a minor punch-up in a pub . There are two reasons to sponsor a footy club. It's either your barrack for them and are much more about winning flags than anything else - these sponsors generally don't get full value for money - or you want exposure to eyes and ears worth more than the cost. These offenses don't take away from that.

The concept of brand damage is about what the brand represents. I doubt many people, of average intelligence or above actually think a player doing something stupid is a reflection of the clubs values or brand. Maybe on WCE drug scale that changes but that's not this context.

Can we simplify it though and see it that your player’s behaviour may force the sponsor into action. So rather than the sponsor personally being offended by the action, they may feel that doing nothing in response is condoning the behaviour, which, and this is getting tedious, can impact on the sponsors brand! Life is significantly about perception.

 

[TheSierBear]

Thats the whole point. The other punishments are not deficient they are appropriate.

I would love to see someone who is upholding this punishment to have an .05 themselves and get the full punishment from the law but then front up to work and find work wants them to cough up $10 K to go into their employers coffers, ask them to do weeks of unpaid voluntary work etc. You think there wouldnt be an outcry of that's unjust.

Collingwood, clearly, and quite pretentiously have to uphold it's brand.
The AFL are the same, and when the season starts watch the poisonous advertisements of McDonalds, KFC, Sportsbet, Carlton Draught, and that's not to mention all the money all clubs make of pokies that makes it's way to the AFL headquarters that ruins lives and tares families apart.

It's all a load of bollox, take a step back and have a think about it.

There are a shitload of kids who make it at AFL but don't have the maturity to be the role models they forced to be because of the baying blood of the media and the fans who feed of it. A Collingwood scandal is of most interest.

Personally I care little about indiscretions like this at Collingwood or at other clubs. Although given the reality that these guys are for whatever reason purported to be role models and the unfair scrutiny that has been the blowtorch at our club you can understand Buckley and the players being well pissed off with JDG who's ****ed up not once but twice.

That said, it would take real balls and integrity to not cave in to the pressures of sponsorship and the brand and just say 'looks this isn't our business, we'll leave it up to the law thanks, we'll also support JDG with guidance and counselling to help him in this tough time'.

How ironic has it been with Mark Robinson both times saying JDG has let Buckley down, is he taking the piss?

It's kind of laughable that one can't see how ridiculous our society is that we care more about the integrity of a young athlete than that of judges/police/politicians etc.

 

[danielnajdek]

Shape in or ship out.

A decision that leaves absolutely no doubt what the Club thinks about De Goey as a person and his off field antics and at the same time gives him a chance for redemption.

What's there not to like?

People are never happy on here. If we did nothing they'd be complaining we were too soft.

 

[DaVe86]

I'm a little disappointed. I see next to no chance that De Goey is available for round 1 now, which is hugely disappointing considering he was our best onfield against Hawthorn last year and probably the only player who kept us in the game. It's a huge leg up to the Hawks.

Hopefully he puts his head down the next few weeks and is able to push for selection, but that seems unlikely.

I'm just not a huge fan of punishing the club in whole for the actions of 1 person. I'm glad he has vowed off alcohol all year, that he will make donations and also contribute to charity. As opposed to a club ban, I would've hammered him on the track, forcing his to start early and finish late.

I think this punishment reflects that he has larger issues than just this latest indiscretion. I get the feeling his attitude as a whole has been off for some time, and this was the final straw.

In any event, I am a huge De Goey fan, and really hope this is the turning point in his career. We need him this year.

 

[JB1975]

Trouble is the club is playing the media game and being weak. Will probably make it more like 6 weeks in the end. Will be hard to see them making it less than last years 4 weeks. Spineless decision.

I don't think that this is about media appearances. The club could have imposed a substantially lesser sanction than it has without too much of a media flurry. In my opinion, based on nothing at all, the club has taken the temperature of the playing group and this is the result.

 

[Gone Critical]

This is something I don’t understand from some posters. You say the club would know who he’s hanging out with, I don’t disagree but I don’t know that either. If we assume they do, and they turn a blind eye, and don’t intervene in the player’s social life, as some people are suggesting, then the player spirals down and becomes a liability to the club (Gardner and Cousins), how does the club respond when questioned on what action they took on the information they had?

Long bow. Cousins and Gardner were being befriended by serious crims.

De Goey is I assume hanging around with his mates from pre Collingwood and they are such a soft target. I am uncomfortable with the club being the arbiter of who he should associate with.

 

[Darkyprotector]

I was just discussing this with a work colleague.

He could play Round 1 technically assuming:

- Works his ass off at training. First in, last out
- Hits his 4 weeks of working a real job with aplomb
- Attaches himself to a leader at the Club and shadows them for a month
- Is humble and apologetic in attitude around the club

I could potentially see that being the case.

At least I'm hoping so. He's too important to us for us to just ruin the start to our season again.

Indefinite to me means we can adjust according to his behaviour and how we see fit
Great work from the club
This could be the making of this lad
I've mentioned before the company he has frequented has led him astray but then it's often the case with school mates , he needs to budy up with some wiser heads .

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Betcha they wouldnt

Moot point.

Nathan just wouldn’t drink and drive.

Eddie wouldn’t leave the presidency until they bring out the proverbial box.

 

[jimmy35]

Seems pretty straight forward to me. You sign up to an organisation, you adhere to their set of values and expectations, which I am sure CFC lays out for the players frequently. If those values and expectations include that as a representative of the club, a player must conduct himself in a certain manner off the field (ie not wilfully break the law), then a player who contravenes them should be appropriately sanctioned by the organisation.

Spot on. I like how the club has handled it. De Goey should be in no doubt where he stands and the rest is up to him.
Hopefully the law now throws the book at the drink driving dickhead.
Was my favourite emerging player Jordan, could still be an elite bull hopefully. Shall turn my focus more to my number two boy Brayden Maynard.

 

[Kappa]

So he's suspended until he convince teammates he changed? So theoretically he can still play round one. I don't mind that.

Zero chance he plays round 1, expect him to need to play 2-3 big VFL games to get a look in

 

[Old Spice]

So you are thinking the Collingwood football club should be defacto parents to their players.

Well we do live in a nanny state so maybe.

No. I am trying to illustrate that we don't live in a dry world where there is only laws and the state to deal with them and nothing else. I'm trying to dispel that rather autistic view.

 

[No SPIN]

Trouble is the club is playing the media game and being weak. Will probably make it more like 6 weeks in the end. Will be hard to see them making it less than last years 4 weeks. Spineless decision.

Actually disagree - the club can logically argue that "behavioural change" both on and off the field, were the bench marks for JDG's return.
If it takes 12 weeks, then that is clearly a poor reflection on JDG. If it takes 2 weeks, then he should be given credit and rewarded for the turnaround. So the club has been very sensible in how they have handled this, and can't be criticised if JDG returns earlier than expected because he has done everything right.

The length of the penalty, is largely irrelevant - what's the point in return after a long stretch, say 6 weeks and behaviour is unchanged.

The club has been very sensible here linking return to behavioural change, which puts the entire responsibility on JDG and also motivates him to minimise the length of his punishment, by making immediate changes to his attitude and lifestyle.

 

[mike123]

Long bow. Cousins and Gardner were being befriended by serious crims.

De Goey is I assume hanging around with his mates from pre Collingwood and they are such a soft target. I am uncomfortable with the club being the arbiter of who he should associate with.

I'm uncomfortably with the club being the arbiter of who he should associate with as well, but if it helps De Goey become a better player and Collingwood win more games then I can't be too against it.