Sydneys perogative though, they consider him a required employee so they have every right to make it hard for him to leave if they feel they are not being fairly compensated.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
ROK talks hit a hurdle - SEN
- Thread starter Tedeski
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Sydneys perogative though, they consider him a required employee so they have every right to make it hard for him to leave if they feel they are not being fairly compensated.
i cant believe your comparing a footy club to a business like an accounting firm. people dont sign 3 year conctracts in business they just work there. there's no salary cap in business.
the point is, the players are seen by all clubs as assets. in fact they are the only assets clubs generally have. and if one of the assets wants out there is a reason to want fair compensation.
get off your high horse
Until the deal is agreed upon both parties can withdraw things from the offer. It is only after the offer has been agreed upon and sealed that this becomes a problem.
It is unlawful for me to hold onto any of my employees against their free will.
If they want to leave, they are entitled to leave given they have met all theire contractual obligations.
ROK wants out...Sydney have NO RIGHTS AT ALL....
So when you switch jobs are you going to allow your employer to make it difficult to leave?
Are you going to force your new employer to compensate your previous boss?.....
yea ................i didn't think so.
Even then, there are ways that an employer can make it hard for a required employee to leave. Take a legal partnership for example, many forms require up to 6 months notice if you are going to leave the partnership, some even more.
Some companies place restrictions of trade upon leaving in employment contracts which make it hard to leave and re-enter your chosen field, not impossible, but you can struggle along for a pre-determined time and so forth.
If Sydney wanted pick 16 they should have taken it when it was on the table, instead they try to get to much in an attempt to 'top up' and have delayed another trade week. Well done Swans 
Grow a brain.
Clubs are a business.
Players/employees have rights.
He is not contracted to Sydney.
I'd like to see you spruiking the same line when you want out of your current job and your current employer doesn't allow it to happen because your future employer isn't giving him, as you put it - fair compensation.
Maybe then you can jump back on your horse.
- Banned
- #259
You said Haw made an offer and Syd rejected. Fine, and fine if Haw withdraw an offer before it's accepted. But the complaint is that Haw have, and not for the first time, f###ed everyone around this week by repeatedly making offers and withdrawing them after they have been accepted, as well as feeding bullsh1t about what players are saying. If it happened once, fine, but it's happened repeatedly with Hawthorn, not just over years, but over the past week. They don't act in good faith and clubs should refuse to deal with them in future years.
Actually ROK has not met his contractural obligations. He is a contrated player to the Sydney football club, his contract ends sometime after the trade period I think you ould find. If it didn't Sydney would have no legal leg to stand on regarding these demands. His contract will officially end sometime after the trade period and beofre the PSD.
I have requested compensation for previous employers in the past. Not as odd as it sounds if your current employer has invested in your education. I once asked and recieved a monetary figure for a previous employer to cover study exenses when I moved jobs once.
I have had restrictions of trade placed into employment contracts at all three of my jobs, common clauses that many companies use. It isn't illegal either, just good business practice. So yes, I have had restrictions palced upon me by previous employers.
Unsociable footy & unsociable trading....I look forward to our unsociable drafting
Geez, i didn't know that AFL Trade week overides the law of the land.
Thanks for clearing that up
If they have been accepted then Sydney FC have a legal recourse against Hawthorn FC, I don't doubt that. I seriously doubt either team would have such a legal cluster @#$% actually happen though.
verbal agreements mean diddly, get it in writing and witnessed. Just ask ROK how much a verbal agreement means.
rubbish, if they had accepted pick 16 for O'Keefe, the deal would be done.
How is Hawthorn screwing everyone around? They withdrew their offer after they felt Sydney asked too much, 16 and Lewis is what they wanted, get real.
the example your putting forward is completely irrelevant. most employees in any given business arent under contract. the fact is ROK is under contract til AFTER trade week. Thus if another team wishes to acquire him during trade week they must negotiate with sydney. No if's no buts. thats the way it is.
After he is out of contract (which he is not yet) he is free to do whatever he wants. but generally in AFL trades get done a) because theres no guarantee you'll get the player you want in the PSD and b) because if you go around screwing every other club by refusing to trade karma will come back and bite you on the ass.
Are you lost? There is a "free agency" thread a few down
If you are trying to address Hawthorn :ROK deal then:
You would have no hope of keeping your employees anyway! You don't even understand the rules of the AFL business!!!
They would decide your stock needed a bit of a freshen up! Then put it in the boot sell it at a super discount to a competitor , pat themselves on the back, give you your share... then line up for the opposition!
- Banned
- #268
It was Lewis alone, not in addition. That was after Hawthorn had him in a list of players available for trade. Everyone is pissed at Hawthorn's conduct, because it's held up trades all week. That's common knowledge and the only people defending their conduct have been their supporters on here.
My previous post was pretty clear.
I have ZERO rights to hold onto any of my employees and or seek compensation from future employers wishing to employ them....Absolute ZERO......DIDLEYS....NADA
- Banned
- #270
My understanding is that Hawthorn started the week saying Pick 16 was on the table. This is a matter of record. Then they said Thursday it was off the table, but Sydney could have any one of "these" players but not one of "these" 8 "untouchables". Lewis wasn't in the 8. Swans said we'll take Lewis. Hawthorn said no. Swans said ok, we'll take Murphy (it may have been someone else but it fitted within the offer). Hawthorn said no. Swans said well you can eff off and stop wasting everybody's time then.
To all the slaggers who bagged Pelcs, shut the hell up...the bloody Swanettes trying to steal our premiership gun who is 4 yrs younger than ROK...disgraceful
and all the other hangers on...get a life man..get a life
and all the other hangers on...get a life man..get a life
You are now ignoring the fact that has been pointed out to you a few times here though.
Sydney do have recourse for compensation since ROK is stil contracted to the Sydney Football Club. ROK needs to meet his contractural agreement with sydney before he is free to leave, or Sydney must recieve compensation or agree to let him go.
Put this into a business situation, if one party decides to break an employment contract the other party is free to ask for compensation, or refuse until such time that the contractural agreement is met out fully.
Happens all the time in business, in fact there would be mediations over such matters happening right now outside of football.
You are arguing this on an emotional level due to the fact that the team we both support have mmissed an opportunity basically becuase Sydney did something they had every right to do. Accept it, enjoy our cup that we won without him, support next year and hope we have similar luck that gives us a go at defending our crown.
Mate, even if thats right it doesnt amount to Hawthorn withdrawing an offer after it had been accepted. Sydney were the ones making the offer and the Hawks never accepted it because the details weren't agreed. I don't get the logic of blaming one side for a deal not going through. Unless both parties are happy then you cant have a trade.
Paddywhackers
Cancelled
I believe by trading SHaw to the Swans, it was probably a favourable deal to the swans which would leave a good tatse in their mouth. I dare say if the Hawks don't offer enough for O'Keefe, ie pick 16, it could mean Collingwood are late bit players in aquiring his services.
He would have to play midfield at the pies though. Don't discount Collingwood ni all this.
He would have to play midfield at the pies though. Don't discount Collingwood ni all this.
This is 100% correct and i'm sure we arnt the only club getting sick of this jokers repeated unethical antics at this time of yr.
Players getting screwed about by some moron treating the players as one big joke.
If u spend 4 days trying to screw a player into a no win back to the wall situation then try to feed out false excuses...it eventually comes home to roost.
The AFL needs to find a way to prevent these unprofessional tyre kickers screwing around with the players futures...masking some egotistical belief they're actually doing some sort of favour for their own club.
And people wonder why noone wants to deal with the Dons.
