Player Watch Steele Sidebottom

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

This thread, it’s assumptions, it’s judgements, I probably shouldn’t be surprised...

hasn't someone saved a script of what are acceptable opinions? If i'm not told what opinions I'm supposed to have, then I'm going to use my own. Sometimes I come in here and there's no guidance at all what i should be posting. If we had a document that listed all the appropriate opinions then it would be better.
 
hasn't someone saved a script of what are acceptable opinions? If i'm not told what opinions I'm supposed to have, then I'm going to use my own. Sometimes I come in here and there's no guidance at all what i should be posting. If we had a document that listed all the appropriate opinions then it would be better.
As a general guide, avoid passing judgment on others when you have no idea of their personal circumstances.
 
As a general guide, avoid passing judgment on others when you have no idea of their personal circumstances.


is that it? maybe people who are too sensitive to these things should stay away.... and it's ok to call people ignorant because that doesn't relate to personal circumstances? I see a lot of name-calling here and some people might interpret that as judgement..
 
is that it? maybe people who are too sensitive to these things should stay away.... and it's ok to call people ignorant because that doesn't relate to personal circumstances? I see a lot of name-calling here and some people might interpret that as judgement..
Maybe, who knows?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Not sure why supporters would be particularly concerned about players not receiving full pay when taking a quarter to a third of the season off for paternity leave.

That's the major misconception in this whole discussion. It's CV19 quarantine that is causing him to have extended leave. If this had happened in 2019 he would have been at the birth of his child AND played every game other than potentially a game scheduled that conflicted with the birth.
 
That's the major misconception in this whole discussion. It's CV19 quarantine that is causing him to have extended leave. If this had happened in 2019 he would have been at the birth of his child AND played every game other than potentially a game scheduled that conflicted with the birth.

I agree that this issue was created by the current border rules, but the rules are there and he's chosen to remain on leave rather than do the quarantine. So it is all leave in my definition of leave.
 
But he's chosen not to do covid 19 quarantine.

He's chosen not to do the 14 days quarantine isolation. Do you think it's reasonable that he should endure that, either away from his then unsupported wife or with his wife and a newborn baby, unable to train either way, just to satisfy your need for him to be playing or available to play? I don't have a problem at all with his decision. And neither do the club or his team mates apparently. If it had happened earlier and the AFL quarantine bubble was an option it may well have resulted in a different outcome, that was not to be.
 
He's chosen not to do the 14 days quarantine isolation. Do you think it's reasonable that he should endure that, either away from his then unsupported wife or with his wife and a newborn baby, unable to train either way, just to satisfy your need for him to be playing or available to play? I don't have a problem at all with his decision. And neither do the club or his team mates apparently. If it had happened earlier and the AFL quarantine bubble was an option it may well have resulted in a different outcome, that was not to be.
I don't have a problem with his decision either, and think the club should give him their blessing to take this leave without pay.
 
I don't have a problem with his decision either, and think the club should give him their blessing to take this leave without pay.

Why should it be without pay? I'd imagine he's at the club training as required and he'd be available for selection for the next game scheduled in Melbourne. How is that not meeting his contractual obligations?
 
He's chosen not to do the 14 days quarantine isolation. Do you think it's reasonable that he should endure that, either away from his then unsupported wife or with his wife and a newborn baby, unable to train either way, just to satisfy your need for him to be playing or available to play? I don't have a problem at all with his decision. And neither do the club or his team mates apparently. If it had happened earlier and the AFL quarantine bubble was an option it may well have resulted in a different outcome, that was not to be.

To me there are several key issues.

1. The attitude of the club to Steele is comparable to the rest of the AFL industry. He isn't being treated as a special case.

2. While conditions of employment vary enormously in the corporate environment, the treatment of Steele is certainly at the most favourable end of the market. I could only hazard a guess, but 90% of employers wouldnt be paying a guy to take extended leave. I'm uncertain about what is in the player's agreement, but the response to Steele is probably better than the agreement because of the virus, and corporations arent doing that at the moment. A lot of fathers take unpaid leave after the birth of a child, but that isn't always possible in some employment situations.

3. Membership makes up a large part of the collingwood income, and a lot of that comes from people who often dont have anything more than a week for a father on parental leave. Most casuals wouldnt get any. Most employees in small business would be lucky to get the week.

4. The majority of the 70000 pie members have chosen not to ask for a refund and many of these members might either have lost their job because of the virus or are financially affected.

Personally, I just feel uneasy about some of the attitudes expressed about the so-called "right" for Steele to make decisions on whether he remains home on paid leave.
 
Would have thought he'd already used up more than his allocation. Pretty confident that a FIFO miner wouldn't be paid in the same scenario.
Depends on what/if the allocation is, I had a guy off for 3 months on full pay, his wife did in this case go back to work quite soon and he stayed home as the primary carer. The point is that Collingwood have agreed to allow this as his employer, we don't know the terms and what has been agreed but the point was made it should be leave without pay, I was just making the point that paternity leave is extended to both the mother and father, there may well be a period of Leave without pay or not.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch Steele Sidebottom

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top