Matt McLeanToday in the AFL - 04/04/2008
April 3rd 2008 23:09
Ben "Dutchy" Holland sues Tigers for 538K
Ben Holland, now a member of the Melbourne Demons, is suing his former club the Richmond Tigers for 530K is what he claims to be unpaid promises. Holland claims that he was offered in excess of $1 Million over 3 years from the Adelaide Crows back in 2001 as opposed to the offer of just over $800K over 3 years from the Tigers, which he accepted. In order to make-up for the $500k more that the Crows offered, the Tigers offered him substantial side-investments, such as jobs at Tigers President's Clinton Casey's-involved aged-care facility as a Podiatrist and investment in land worth over $100K.
Holland is claiming that he never received any of this and I believe he has strong grounds to take Casey and the Tigers to court, especially considering he would have received that money owed to him had he simply signed the contract with the Crows. There might be a few things that stand in his way, though.
Firstly, the Crows might be reluctant to discuss and/or disclose information regarding offers they make to uncontracted players. Whether they are forced to do so by the courts I guess only time will tell. Secondly, Holland bases his case on verbal and implied promises, with hardly anything in writing. What this shows is that he trusted Clinton Casey enough to fulfill these promises. He didn't see the need to chase up any written agreement in the seven or so years since the so-called agreement of words. This may be a problem, but probably not.
Verbal contracts hold up in court, especially ones of such high monetary importance and influence. It's not like Holland walked off the street and a stranger offered him investment in land and aged-care facilities. This was a verbal agreement between an employee and employer that in-turn kept the employee from leaving the company to go elsewhere. He stayed based on the verbal promise made by his employer, and if he can prove that both the Crows offered him a substantially larger contract and that the Tigers offered him side financial-gain, outside of the salary cap, he must be entitled to that money.
This brings up a whole new debate though. Apparently, according to Craig Hutchison on The Footy Show last night, the AFL has only recently ordered clubs to hand-over documents detailing any investment agreements between the club and a player that go towards the players financial gain and that lie outside of a clubs salary cap. I doubt that the AFL is clamping down on this as a problem, but rather as a means of documenting everything that a club and player agree on.
This has brought me to believe that Holland may have contacted the AFL and the Richmond Football Club beforehand and they had tried to come to an agreement, but had failed. This may in-turn have led the league to order clubs to submit this kind of information, knowing that Holland would be taking the case to court.
Also, when was Holland so damn good that he was worth $1.1 Million over 3 years? That might not be that much for a high profile player now, but back in 2001 that would have been a substantially large contract. I don't care what anyone says, but he was never worth that much. Even Billy Brownless was surprised at that last night on The Footy Show.
Blues refuse alternate-strip
Over the past few years, many clubs have locked horns with the AFL over the recently introduced clash-jump system in which the away team wears an alternate coloured jumper to avoid clashing colours with the opposition. Carlton wore a white strip last round against the Saints and apparently the club received a flood of negetive response regarding the jumper.
Greg Swann earlier this week told 3AW that the club had banned the jumper after such a negetive response. The Blues plan to wear the jumper against the Demons in round 5 at the MCG, but Swann has stated that after that anything other then a navy blue jumper is out of the question.
The AFL fines a club $5,000 per player if they fail to wear a clash jumper when deemed necessary by the AFL. So, if the Blues fail to wear it when asked, they will be fined $100,000.
I haven't been the biggest fan of the AFL as of late, mostly because of some of their insipid rule changes, however, I think in this instance they need to put their foot down and make a stand. Clubs like Collingwood and Carlton are using the traditional stance and their financial power to stand up to the AFL and refuse to wear an alternate strip. On the opposite end of the spectrum, teams like Melbourne and the Kangaroos don't have the money, or effort, to fight the AFL in such an instance, and lay down as soon as the AFL orders them to wear an alternate jumper.
Traditionalists ask the question, "We didn't need clash jumpers 50 years ago, why do we need them now?"
The answer to that question is simple: Because we can. 50 years ago the option to change into a different jumper wasn't possible; it cost money, effort and resources that clubs and the league just didn't have.
Now, clubs have the ability to make an alternate strip that ultimately makes viewing easier for the fans, umpires and players themselves. Isn't that what football is all about? The fans? Not everyone can win a premiership, so the rest of us are left to sit in the stands and witness it, but we can't do that when we can't tell which team is which.
The AFL needs to put its foot down and order clubs to have an alternate strip. When Collingwood plays an away game to the Kangaroos, order them to wear an all-black jumper. When its Collingwoods home game, order the Roos to wear an all-babyblue jumper. Traditionalists need to get over their clubs "colours" and accept evolution and change. Stuff like this is needed because it's available. If fans don't like it, experiment. Instead of an all-white jumper, go for a Power-style flash jumper that still maintains the navy blue and white.
Grand Thomas insists Melbourne should go radical
Former St. Kilda coach Grand Thomas has encourage Melbourne coach Dean Bailey to incorporate a radical game plan against the Cats this weekend. This is all coming from one of the most under-performing coaches in the history of the AFL.
If Bailey needs to do anything on Saturday when the Demons face a certain hiding, it's continue on the path he started. He's only been coach for two rounds and to change the gameplan, one in which the players are still adapting too, in order to meet the standard of Geelong would do more harm then good.
As a die-hard Melbourne fan, I have no doubt that the Dees can stay afloat this weekend and come close to a victory. Normally I'm quite an obvious realist, but with this theory some of you might judge my level of realism. However, I believe that if the Demons hold firm and continue on the gameplan in which they are yet to fully develop, they'll be OK. That's because their team isn't all that bad. They have the 8th (or thereabouts) youngest list in the competition. They don't have a natural leader but many young players who in future can bare the load. They also have a fair list of veterans that know what it takes to turn two weeks of hell into a victory.
In 1998, the Demons lost consecutively to the Cats and Saints in 80 point hidings. The following week they lost to the Dogs by 4 goals. They went to meet a flying West Coast in Perth the following week with no chance of winning, and they won by 3 goals, led by Jeff White, Russell Robertson and James McDonald. White earlier this week compared the first two rounds to that exact instance, and no doubt the team is using that as inspiration.
If this team wants to achieve anything this week, it will be through sticking to its gameplan and keeping the loss minimal, maybe even winning. Changing an already half-implemented gameplan would be ludicrious, and it's no wonder Thomas never led a champion Saints side to a premiership.
DUD of the Day
Dud of the Day today has to go to the banana who put $100,000 on the Cats to beat the Dees on the weekend at $1.04. Clearly the man (or woman) has no guts. If you've got that sort of money to throw around, do it on a real bet, like the Power at just over $2 to beat the Crows or the Roos to beat the Hawks at just over $2.50
Question of the Day
Send you questions to gaetano@mymedia.net.au with "AFL DAILY QUESTION" in the subject.
From Vince:
What's your take on the high number of free kicks last week?
What's my take on it? My take on it is that the game's weird and wacky rules are now being found out and are being taken advantage of through over-umpiring. I'd hate to be a back-line player in this day and age.
Ben Holland, now a member of the Melbourne Demons, is suing his former club the Richmond Tigers for 530K is what he claims to be unpaid promises. Holland claims that he was offered in excess of $1 Million over 3 years from the Adelaide Crows back in 2001 as opposed to the offer of just over $800K over 3 years from the Tigers, which he accepted. In order to make-up for the $500k more that the Crows offered, the Tigers offered him substantial side-investments, such as jobs at Tigers President's Clinton Casey's-involved aged-care facility as a Podiatrist and investment in land worth over $100K.
Holland is claiming that he never received any of this and I believe he has strong grounds to take Casey and the Tigers to court, especially considering he would have received that money owed to him had he simply signed the contract with the Crows. There might be a few things that stand in his way, though.
Firstly, the Crows might be reluctant to discuss and/or disclose information regarding offers they make to uncontracted players. Whether they are forced to do so by the courts I guess only time will tell. Secondly, Holland bases his case on verbal and implied promises, with hardly anything in writing. What this shows is that he trusted Clinton Casey enough to fulfill these promises. He didn't see the need to chase up any written agreement in the seven or so years since the so-called agreement of words. This may be a problem, but probably not.
Verbal contracts hold up in court, especially ones of such high monetary importance and influence. It's not like Holland walked off the street and a stranger offered him investment in land and aged-care facilities. This was a verbal agreement between an employee and employer that in-turn kept the employee from leaving the company to go elsewhere. He stayed based on the verbal promise made by his employer, and if he can prove that both the Crows offered him a substantially larger contract and that the Tigers offered him side financial-gain, outside of the salary cap, he must be entitled to that money.
This brings up a whole new debate though. Apparently, according to Craig Hutchison on The Footy Show last night, the AFL has only recently ordered clubs to hand-over documents detailing any investment agreements between the club and a player that go towards the players financial gain and that lie outside of a clubs salary cap. I doubt that the AFL is clamping down on this as a problem, but rather as a means of documenting everything that a club and player agree on.
This has brought me to believe that Holland may have contacted the AFL and the Richmond Football Club beforehand and they had tried to come to an agreement, but had failed. This may in-turn have led the league to order clubs to submit this kind of information, knowing that Holland would be taking the case to court.
Also, when was Holland so damn good that he was worth $1.1 Million over 3 years? That might not be that much for a high profile player now, but back in 2001 that would have been a substantially large contract. I don't care what anyone says, but he was never worth that much. Even Billy Brownless was surprised at that last night on The Footy Show.
Blues refuse alternate-strip
Over the past few years, many clubs have locked horns with the AFL over the recently introduced clash-jump system in which the away team wears an alternate coloured jumper to avoid clashing colours with the opposition. Carlton wore a white strip last round against the Saints and apparently the club received a flood of negetive response regarding the jumper.
Greg Swann earlier this week told 3AW that the club had banned the jumper after such a negetive response. The Blues plan to wear the jumper against the Demons in round 5 at the MCG, but Swann has stated that after that anything other then a navy blue jumper is out of the question.
The AFL fines a club $5,000 per player if they fail to wear a clash jumper when deemed necessary by the AFL. So, if the Blues fail to wear it when asked, they will be fined $100,000.
I haven't been the biggest fan of the AFL as of late, mostly because of some of their insipid rule changes, however, I think in this instance they need to put their foot down and make a stand. Clubs like Collingwood and Carlton are using the traditional stance and their financial power to stand up to the AFL and refuse to wear an alternate strip. On the opposite end of the spectrum, teams like Melbourne and the Kangaroos don't have the money, or effort, to fight the AFL in such an instance, and lay down as soon as the AFL orders them to wear an alternate jumper.
Traditionalists ask the question, "We didn't need clash jumpers 50 years ago, why do we need them now?"
The answer to that question is simple: Because we can. 50 years ago the option to change into a different jumper wasn't possible; it cost money, effort and resources that clubs and the league just didn't have.
Now, clubs have the ability to make an alternate strip that ultimately makes viewing easier for the fans, umpires and players themselves. Isn't that what football is all about? The fans? Not everyone can win a premiership, so the rest of us are left to sit in the stands and witness it, but we can't do that when we can't tell which team is which.
The AFL needs to put its foot down and order clubs to have an alternate strip. When Collingwood plays an away game to the Kangaroos, order them to wear an all-black jumper. When its Collingwoods home game, order the Roos to wear an all-babyblue jumper. Traditionalists need to get over their clubs "colours" and accept evolution and change. Stuff like this is needed because it's available. If fans don't like it, experiment. Instead of an all-white jumper, go for a Power-style flash jumper that still maintains the navy blue and white.
Grand Thomas insists Melbourne should go radical
Former St. Kilda coach Grand Thomas has encourage Melbourne coach Dean Bailey to incorporate a radical game plan against the Cats this weekend. This is all coming from one of the most under-performing coaches in the history of the AFL.
If Bailey needs to do anything on Saturday when the Demons face a certain hiding, it's continue on the path he started. He's only been coach for two rounds and to change the gameplan, one in which the players are still adapting too, in order to meet the standard of Geelong would do more harm then good.
As a die-hard Melbourne fan, I have no doubt that the Dees can stay afloat this weekend and come close to a victory. Normally I'm quite an obvious realist, but with this theory some of you might judge my level of realism. However, I believe that if the Demons hold firm and continue on the gameplan in which they are yet to fully develop, they'll be OK. That's because their team isn't all that bad. They have the 8th (or thereabouts) youngest list in the competition. They don't have a natural leader but many young players who in future can bare the load. They also have a fair list of veterans that know what it takes to turn two weeks of hell into a victory.
In 1998, the Demons lost consecutively to the Cats and Saints in 80 point hidings. The following week they lost to the Dogs by 4 goals. They went to meet a flying West Coast in Perth the following week with no chance of winning, and they won by 3 goals, led by Jeff White, Russell Robertson and James McDonald. White earlier this week compared the first two rounds to that exact instance, and no doubt the team is using that as inspiration.
If this team wants to achieve anything this week, it will be through sticking to its gameplan and keeping the loss minimal, maybe even winning. Changing an already half-implemented gameplan would be ludicrious, and it's no wonder Thomas never led a champion Saints side to a premiership.
DUD of the Day
Dud of the Day today has to go to the banana who put $100,000 on the Cats to beat the Dees on the weekend at $1.04. Clearly the man (or woman) has no guts. If you've got that sort of money to throw around, do it on a real bet, like the Power at just over $2 to beat the Crows or the Roos to beat the Hawks at just over $2.50
Question of the Day
Send you questions to gaetano@mymedia.net.au with "AFL DAILY QUESTION" in the subject.
From Vince:
What's your take on the high number of free kicks last week?
What's my take on it? My take on it is that the game's weird and wacky rules are now being found out and are being taken advantage of through over-umpiring. I'd hate to be a back-line player in this day and age.
| 141 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
