Swan said he would SACK Fevola in 2008 if Fevola caused further problems

[Corrosion]

I like that a Crown Casino emplyee has come out saying Fev was not the worst behaved.

BUT funny how he is the only one that fans want sacked.I think ALL players who were drunk should lose 10000.Equality rules imo.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/po...brownlow-display/story-e6frf7jo-1225778889248

But..........but.........but.......Fevola is a high profile player, no other Big Footy member will read this article because it has truth in it.

 

[PumpyChowdown]

This is the biggest 'non story' of the year. FFS, get over it.

 

[The Mongrel Punt]

Hypocritical AFL should stop serving free grog at the Brownlow. Simple...

 

[Xtreme]

But..........but.........but.......Fevola is a high profile player, no other Big Footy member will read this article because it has truth in it.

Herald Sun..... TRUTHFUL ? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH /fake laughter

 

[Boucks09]

Let's face it, the majority of opposition supporters who want Fevola sacked, don't want it to happen to protect Fevola or the community. It is typical football rhetoric where you hope an opposition club can be weakened. If he is sacked tomorrow, 15 threads pop up on team boards, wondering how you can nab him in a trade.

As for continually bringing up what Swann said about sacking him, you would have to look at what they meant by incident. Did they mean getting drunk in public or did they mean something that required the law to get involved? As has been pointed out, his new contract does not contain that specific behaviour clause as it wouldn't have been signed. We do have the option to fall back on the behaviour clause in a standard playing contract that talks about wilful or criminal behaviour. This incident does not qualify for that clause.

So now we have a free kick at Carlton for not upholding their end of the bargain (again, what is your personal interest in seeing them do this?) or we have Fevola sacked. Win/Win for most opposition supporters who are being disingenuous at best.

We know that Carlton are not flavour of the week/month/year/millenium, so to see many opposition supporters state this is a non-event is refreshing.

It's not sweeping under a rug for a Carlton supporter to call this an overreaction. As far as incidents goes, it is minor and it does not lend itself to calls for a sacking, morally or legally. Where Carlton and Carlton supporters (and nobody else) should be wary, is that we have a certain ex-president who tarnished our name through a series of minor incidents, that tended to add up to a whole lot of ugliness. In isolation, we shrug and let these things through to the keeper. When you break out the calculator and add them up though .... you have problems.

Imagine if Fev had gone on a drunken bender and in the one night had been loud and obnoxious, had paraded around in public wearing a sex toy, had fooled around with a fire extinguisher, harassed a dry cleaner, put a bartender in a headlock, urinated on a window and bedded down with Lara Bingle. Individually, they are minor shenanigans, collectively, you could make a case for sacking him.

We love the big fella, not just because he kicks goals for our team, but because he is a character, one of the boys, friendly knock about bloke, and pretty funny to boot. That's one side of the coin. Pull it together Fev, enough is enough mate ... seriously.

Outstanding post.

Summarised the entire incident, potential ramifications and motivations brilliantly.

 

[snrub]

What's hypocritical is that the media expect players to be role models as they say misbehaviour sends poor messages.....so if they were so keen on sending good messages to kids why run a story of a player stuffing up. It' sends bad messages. Principles v sales?????

Their role models on because the media put them on a pedestal. Otherwise we wouldn't know if they stuffed up if they didn't print it. No bad messages then.

And let's be clear, the television network so offended by a football player failing to live up to the role model tag was the same television network who assigned a crew and a microphone to a football player who was always going to be drunk, to go around and interview other extremely drunk football players. And all for our entertainment.

 

[ziad]

Let's face it, the majority of opposition supporters who want Fevola sacked, don't want it to happen to protect Fevola or the community. It is typical football rhetoric where you hope an opposition club can be weakened. If he is sacked tomorrow, 15 threads pop up on team boards, wondering how you can nab him in a trade.

As for continually bringing up what Swann said about sacking him, you would have to look at what they meant by incident. Did they mean getting drunk in public or did they mean something that required the law to get involved? As has been pointed out, his new contract does not contain that specific behaviour clause as it wouldn't have been signed. We do have the option to fall back on the behaviour clause in a standard playing contract that talks about wilful or criminal behaviour. This incident does not qualify for that clause.

So now we have a free kick at Carlton for not upholding their end of the bargain (again, what is your personal interest in seeing them do this?) or we have Fevola sacked. Win/Win for most opposition supporters who are being disingenuous at best.

We know that Carlton are not flavour of the week/month/year/millenium, so to see many opposition supporters state this is a non-event is refreshing.

It's not sweeping under a rug for a Carlton supporter to call this an overreaction. As far as incidents goes, it is minor and it does not lend itself to calls for a sacking, morally or legally. Where Carlton and Carlton supporters (and nobody else) should be wary, is that we have a certain ex-president who tarnished our name through a series of minor incidents, that tended to add up to a whole lot of ugliness. In isolation, we shrug and let these things through to the keeper. When you break out the calculator and add them up though .... you have problems.

Imagine if Fev had gone on a drunken bender and in the one night had been loud and obnoxious, had paraded around in public wearing a sex toy, had fooled around with a fire extinguisher, harassed a dry cleaner, put a bartender in a headlock, urinated on a window and bedded down with Lara Bingle. Individually, they are minor shenanigans, collectively, you could make a case for sacking him.

We love the big fella, not just because he kicks goals for our team, but because he is a character, one of the boys, friendly knock about bloke, and pretty funny to boot. That's one side of the coin. Pull it together Fev, enough is enough mate ... seriously.

In part you summarised the weakness of culture that is carlton.

Most clubs have moved on from such attitudes.

Sydney sacked Hall for his behaviour not is lack of ability. No every club would now risk taking Hall.

No every club would risk fev, not as a player, but as a person.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Let's face it, the majority of opposition supporters who want Fevola sacked, don't want it to happen to protect Fevola or the community. It is typical football rhetoric where you hope an opposition club can be weakened. If he is sacked tomorrow, 15 threads pop up on team boards, wondering how you can nab him in a trade.

That may be true. A few clubs would want him, and a few wouldn't. I don't see Melbourne being interested in him.

The point is that Fev's behavioural problems will continue until he learns the consequences of his actions. When he sees that the statements made by swann and others are just shallow threats, he will find no reason to curtail his drinking habits.

As for continually bringing up what Swann said about sacking him, you would have to look at what they meant by incident. Did they mean getting drunk in public or did they mean something that required the law to get involved?

So now we're getting into semantics. A drunken incident is a drunken incident my friend. And what Fev got himself into on Monday night was nothing else.

Imagine if Fev had gone on a drunken bender and in the one night had been loud and obnoxious, had paraded around in public wearing a sex toy, had fooled around with a fire extinguisher, harassed a dry cleaner, put a bartender in a headlock, urinated on a window and bedded down with Lara Bingle. Individually, they are minor shenanigans, collectively, you could make a case for sacking him.

Does it have to be Lara Bingle? Seriously, you're setting the bar a little too low here.

Fev did go and get drunk at a black tie function. During the course of the night he vomited, made sexually explicit gestures, and generally made a dick of himself.

Pull it together Fev, enough is enough mate ... seriously.

Enough was enough about 5 'incidents' ago. He's 29 now, it's too late to hope that he will simply 'change'.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

In part you summarised the weakness of culture that is carlton.

Most clubs have moved on from such attitudes.

Sydney sacked Hall for his behaviour not is lack of ability. No every club would now risk taking Hall.

No every club would risk fev, not as a player, but as a person.

Rubbish. If you could get him for a decent price, every club would consider him, no doubt about it.

Hall's problem was an inability to control himself onfield. He does not kick as many goals as Fev and he is 32 years old. Compare apples with apples thanks. Your brown envelopes comment above shows just how seriously your input should be taken.

 

[mediumsizered]

Sydney sacked Hall for his behaviour not is lack of ability. No every club would now risk taking Hall.

Did Sydney sack Hall after his assault on Brent Staker (totally unprovoked & not even close to being in play)? No, they stood him down & sent him for 'counselling', bringing him back for the second half of the season, making sure he was 'cherry ripe' for the finals.

A year later they finally sacked him because it was painfully obvious to all concerned that he was still a danger to those around him & himself, evidenced by his little unprovoked 'jab' on Rutten's face.

Of course these latter two incidents weren't isolated. Hall wasn't christened 'Big Bad Bustling Barry' for his ability to win contested possessions in close, but because he had a significant history of on-field violence long before he tried to rearrange Staker's face.

In the end, it wasn't too hard for the Swans to sack Hall, as they were extremely fearful as to what Hall would actually do on the field. He was a time-bomb, potentially not very far away from a major explosion.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

That may be true. A few clubs would want him, and a few wouldn't. I don't see Melbourne being interested in him.

The only thing that would scare him away would be his pay packet. As I said, salary aside, EVERY club would take him.

The point is that Fev's behavioural problems will continue until he learns the consequences of his actions. When he sees that the statements made by swann and others are just shallow threats, he will find no reason to curtail his drinking habits.

You are hard of hearing as well. There is no clause in his contract that enables the club to sack him. He signed a new contract since that incident while he was in red hot form and the clause was a bone of contention. Instead the club relied on the conduct clause in a standard player contract to void the contract if Fev breached it. His drunken behaviour did not breach this clause in any way.

Maybe you would like to see Carlton sack Fev and have to pay out two years of a hefty contract or be dragged through the courts, but then you don't have Carlton's or Fev's best interests at heart. You are just one of the self interested parties looking for excuses to weaken an opposition club thinking it makes your own team's prospects that little bit stronger.

So now we're getting into semantics. A drunken incident is a drunken incident my friend. And what Fev got himself into on Monday night was nothing else.

Semantics are necessary. I believe the wording was 'alcohol related incident.' That could anything from breaking a glass to tripping over a gutter after a couple to waving a dildo around on Mad Monday to god knows what. Don't you think they are better placed to judge what constitutes a sackable incident, than you are?

Does it have to be Lara Bingle? Seriously, you're setting the bar a little too low here.

What? I'm talking about actual isolated incidents being added up. If you want a work of fiction, read your own posts occasionally.

Fev did go and get drunk at a black tie function.

Along with dozens of others.

During the course of the night he vomited, made sexually explicit gestures

Okay, let's just wait for the police report to be filed.

and generally made a dick of himself.

Now I know the contract doesn't mention this one.

Enough was enough about 5 'incidents' ago. He's 29 now, it's too late to hope that he will simply 'change'.

It's really none of your business if I personally would like to see Fev change or not. It's a wish of mine and I couldn't give two stuffs if you approve or not.

 

[Footy Mad]

but then you don't have Carlton's or Fev's best interests at heart.

You sound like a very astute Carlton man. I would like to know what you think are in Carlton's best interests then what are in Fev's best interest?

Are the "interests" mutual or are they drifting apart?

Look I got abused and got another thread closed because I suggested when this goes to the vote its going to be very, very close. Low and behold its going to a board meeting - what a surprise!

My mail said if the vote was taken at 9.00am Tuesday morning he was in deep, deep trouble some wanted him "gone". Time many just save him, think a few heads have settled down.

 

[Bollox]

More likely to get a pay rise than the sack.
Its Carlton....cant imagine anyone would expect anything honorable from that club or to ever do what they say. Not in their nature.
Fevola has learnt not to giveashit...already allocated a few dollars and practiced his solemn "never again" face...she'll be right. Carlton will simply be thinking how big they can make a fine so the media thinks its a penalty

 

[Joe Mama]

People are not born with original sin. Devout Catholics believe people are, but god does not exist.

Game on ball boys.

Although I am a catholic turned atheist, I do believe that no person is truly flawed or truly perfect, humans are perfectly imperfect, and it's our flaws that make us truly human.

 

[Joe Mama]

god almighty, do you actually expect anyone to read that?

You don't need to use bold, italics and underline champ. Normal text will do

I only did it that way to differenciate my replies from the original poster.

But, I probably shouldn't have done it for my last two paragraphs, so that is duly noted.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

More likely to get a pay rise than the sack.
Its Carlton....cant imagine anyone would expect anything honorable from that club or to ever do what they say. Not in their nature.
Fevola has learnt not to giveashit...already allocated a few dollars and practiced his solemn "never again" face...she'll be right. Carlton will simply be thinking how big they can make a fine so the media thinks its a penalty

There is nothing 'honourable' about a sacking a player, regardless of what they did. It is a serious decision that affects both parties. An honourable action would be to persevere with a player and do everything you can to rehabilitate them. An honourable action would be for Fevola to recognise the harm he causes and volunteer to retire or be traded. Sacking someone carries no honour. At best he requires the courage to be ruthless but it does nothing for the player themselves.

No point being up on your soapbox about what is honourable, because you too have shown zero inclination to want what is best for Carlton or Fevola. How on earth this decision would affect you is beyond me. You are no different to the rest who goad other teams into doing something that might temporarily weaken them for purely selfish reasons.

What happens to Fevola if he is sacked? He either gets picked up by another club whose hypocritical supporters will embrace him the moment he starts winning games for them, or he is left disgraced on a scrap heap with a dwindling bank balance and the one thing that keeps him away from binge drinking idiocy taken away from him. Great, he can now get shitfaced anonymously where nobody cares if he is acting like a tool. Take care Fev, off ya go. How easy is that?

 

[JeffDunne]

He won't get the sack but Carlton will be offering him around until the trade deadline.

If they can get something of worth they will trade him.

 

[Grimreepah]

Why did Carlton remove the drinking clause from his last contract?

 

[TedDougChris]

Hypocritical AFL should stop serving free grog at the Brownlow. Simple...

Close, but don't the AFL control who attends the Brownlow ???

Then why invite a bloke with a reputation for being a drunken idiot who can't control himself after having a few drinks ???

Don't bring him to a function with unlimited free alcohol and then expect everything to come up rosy....

Now, obviously Fev and Carlton have a few other issues to work out, but surely the AFL must view this as a mistake.... Oh, sorry, they don't do those.....

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Why did Carlton remove the drinking clause from his last contract?

There was never a clause in the contract. The statement was made while he was under contract. His behaviour improved, his form was red hot, his onfield conduct a lot better, and when they tried to put it into the next contract, his management refused. The club decided that what they really were worried about was covered by the conduct clause in the standard playing contract and did the deal. It is highly questionable that this latest incident encroaches on that clause.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

He won't get the sack but Carlton will be offering him around until the trade deadline.

If they can get something of worth they will trade him.

And that trade would have to involve a draft pick and a forward capable of taking the key post. Won't be easy.

 

[JeffDunne]

Why did Carlton remove the drinking clause from his last contract?

Because they couldn't include it in the first place. It was simply chest beating by the club.

The current CBA has set clauses for behaviour breaches.

Carlton have always been between a rock and hard place with Fev because they still let the tail wag the dog.

It would be an easy decision for most other clubs.

 

[BarneyBent]

Please find me thousands of blokes who get drunk at work functions every weekend whilst representing their employer and stakeholders without being severaly disciplined, and most likely sacked.


People really need to stop using this analogy. It's not in anyway apt. If Fev did this next weekend, it would be an entirely different scenario. But he didn't. So stop comparing it to going out with mates and getting drunk.

As I said, if the powers that be at the Footy Show want to discipline him/sack him, that's fine. He was meant to be doing a job, he couldn't because he got too drunk. But he wasn't being paid to go to the Brownlow. He didn't hurt anybody (there are allegations he slapped somebody, if proven true then he deserves to be punished by the club, and there is yet to be any proof he did it, so he must be assumed innocent until proven guilty). He wasn't working for his footy club when he was at the Brownlow, he was enjoying a night out in a work-related environment. Yes, he went overboard but no harm was done.

People really are too precious these days. You can say he was a douche, a tool, overbearing, whatever, and that may be true, but that's just him. You have to deal with people like that every day. That doesn't mean he should be crucified.