I was just wondering where you would all sit if there was an AFL case similar to Israel Folau's. Or even what you think of his case.
And I mean beyond the simple - he had a clause in his contract and he broke it stuff.
So I suppose I'm wondering, do you think contract clauses like that should even be a thing?
Should someone be able to answer a question and give their own personal honest beliefs, or should their freedom of speech be restricted in order to protect the League/Club/Sponsor image?
Does the League/Club/Sponsor image actually even suffer? Can't the viewing public just understand that it's that player's opinion, and not the League/Club/Sponsor's?
Or is it vital that images are protected?
And if we do protect images, doesn't that mean we narrow the range and diversity of people who play in the League? Because those with differing views will be discouraged from participating or speaking? And all the ill-effects that come with that outcome? Won't we just create a group of same-same players with no personality of their own etc? Does that matter?
Sorry for the meandering, just trying to put a lot of the questions in my mind out there to see how others think.
Hypothetical
Re: Hypothetical
I think AFL Rule 2.3 (Conduct Unbecoming or Prejudicial to the Interests of the AFL ) covers this.
I suspect that there are social media clauses in the standard AFL contract that also would also address this.
New recruits have a couple of whole day induction classes, and this is covered (along with drug testing, gambling etc).
Oliver landed in a bit of hot water over pre-game sledging last year and was told to pull his head in. Abblett was queried why we "liked" the Folau post.
My position is that they are there to play footy and most of them are very young and they aren't rocket scientists - so it's probably best they don't court controversy.
They get paid enough so IMO they can keep their opinions and philosophies to themselves and their loved ones until they retire.
I suspect that there are social media clauses in the standard AFL contract that also would also address this.
New recruits have a couple of whole day induction classes, and this is covered (along with drug testing, gambling etc).
Oliver landed in a bit of hot water over pre-game sledging last year and was told to pull his head in. Abblett was queried why we "liked" the Folau post.
My position is that they are there to play footy and most of them are very young and they aren't rocket scientists - so it's probably best they don't court controversy.
They get paid enough so IMO they can keep their opinions and philosophies to themselves and their loved ones until they retire.
dices ad adepto futui (tell them to f*** off)
Re: Hypothetical
It's true they're being paid to do a job - and that's as far as their comments should probably go.
But what about their personal lives? Can they, or should they be able to, make personal opinion statements outside of their jobs?
For example, would you or I want our employer restricting what we can say and like outside of work hours?
But what about their personal lives? Can they, or should they be able to, make personal opinion statements outside of their jobs?
For example, would you or I want our employer restricting what we can say and like outside of work hours?
Re: Hypothetical
What if a player Refused to play on Good Friday and not necessarily on grounds of religious belief?
I’m not watching the Rabbitohs or Essendon playing this Friday by the way.I simply believe this day deserves far better respect than we are showing it these days,but something tells me I am swimming against the tide.
Once the retailers get their way(who I would fight against vigorously on this),my attitude would be,”Bugger it!you may as well open everything up,be it the pubs,Clubs,casinos or watching the news now,a Sydney Burger Bar.
But for now,if there’s a big queue outside the Canfield Tavern,right near Perth Stadium,I hope they get pissed on from a great height,especially the Government departments who approved this.The weather forecast made me grin like a devil,if you pardon the pun.It’s gunna piss down in Perth on Friday,Big Time!
I’m not watching the Rabbitohs or Essendon playing this Friday by the way.I simply believe this day deserves far better respect than we are showing it these days,but something tells me I am swimming against the tide.
Once the retailers get their way(who I would fight against vigorously on this),my attitude would be,”Bugger it!you may as well open everything up,be it the pubs,Clubs,casinos or watching the news now,a Sydney Burger Bar.
But for now,if there’s a big queue outside the Canfield Tavern,right near Perth Stadium,I hope they get pissed on from a great height,especially the Government departments who approved this.The weather forecast made me grin like a devil,if you pardon the pun.It’s gunna piss down in Perth on Friday,Big Time!
Re: Hypothetical
Interesting points Grassy.
Houli wouldn't play on a Sunday - due to religious beliefs. So should he be deregistered because he doesn't fit with the AFL Corporate view?
Similar for Good Friday. We're a Christian based society, so if a player wanted to honour those values and not play, would they be deregistered?
Odd isn't it, that despite our Christian base, the AFL are happy to disregard it (Sundays and Good Friday) for their corporate greed.
These are precisely the issues that caused me to pose the original questions - just where is the line between personal V corporate rights/beliefs?
Houli wouldn't play on a Sunday - due to religious beliefs. So should he be deregistered because he doesn't fit with the AFL Corporate view?
Similar for Good Friday. We're a Christian based society, so if a player wanted to honour those values and not play, would they be deregistered?
Odd isn't it, that despite our Christian base, the AFL are happy to disregard it (Sundays and Good Friday) for their corporate greed.
These are precisely the issues that caused me to pose the original questions - just where is the line between personal V corporate rights/beliefs?
-
Crazyman
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 7110
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:51 pm
- Location: Sydney (Don't hold it against me)
- Contact:
Re: Hypothetical
There are clauses for this and if he said that in any other workplace he would be up for discrimination and harassment and could lose his job.
I have long held the belief that everyone is entitled to thier choices and opinions, but unless it comes up in conversation, no one should force them on others. It’s all about how it is delivered...
If he’s on 4 corners or some religious program discussing, ok, maybe not the best way to say it, but right forum. On twitter as a rant, not good and deserves the consequences he gets.
I have long held the belief that everyone is entitled to thier choices and opinions, but unless it comes up in conversation, no one should force them on others. It’s all about how it is delivered...
If he’s on 4 corners or some religious program discussing, ok, maybe not the best way to say it, but right forum. On twitter as a rant, not good and deserves the consequences he gets.
Re: Hypothetical
This.Crazyman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:47 am There are clauses for this and if he said that in any other workplace he would be up for discrimination and harassment and could lose his job.
I have long held the belief that everyone is entitled to thier choices and opinions, but unless it comes up in conversation, no one should force them on others. It’s all about how it is delivered...
If he’s on 4 corners or some religious program discussing, ok, maybe not the best way to say it, but right forum. On twitter as a rant, not good and deserves the consequences he gets.
He’s free to say what he wants. But it has consequences if it breaches code of conduct, code of ethics, code of whatever. You sign up to play by certain rules, and then you break those rules...then there will be consequences.
Simple really.
Essendunny
