Monday, February 21, 2011

Contractual responsibilities

Brisbane Lions’ decision not to honour its contract with Brendan Fevola seems a strange one given their recruiting of him only a year ago.

It cannot have escaped the notice of various Lions officials at the time of recruiting him that Fevola had recently had a number of public ‘errors of judgement’. Goodness knows what he’s done in more private circumstances. Brisbane can not have harboured any illusions about task they were taking on. It was a high stakes gamble — a generous contract with the promise of high on-field returns, but with the likelihood of a sting in the tail.

In the circumstances, and whatever Fevola’s misdemeanours may have been, AussieRulesBlog finds it incredible that Brisbane can attempt to wash their hands of Fevola. They didn’t create the monster — that responsibility lies with various Carlton coaches and administrations — but they cannot deny that they knew what they were taking on.

Notwithstanding that there are light years of difference between the two in many ways, the positive end to Ben Cousins’ career and Richmond’s show of faith in him contrasts starkly with the situation Fevola now faces. A storied career appears set to end in tatters.

More importantly, and here is a point of synergy with Cousins, football has been the area of Fevola’s life — perhaps the only area — where he has been able to express himself in a way the community has (generally) approved of. It has been clear that the chance to return to AFL football was an important component of Cousins’ rehabilitation. Fevola, it now seems, won’t be allowed that opportunity.

And what of the Lions’ officials who landed this big fish? Beyond some internal embarrassment, will they bear any opprobrium?

Brisbane may be ridding themselves of a distraction, but they are abrogating, presumably with encouragement from AFL House, a high-profile responsibility they took on only a year ago.

Twice in two years, AFL clubs have taken on a player with known negative issues. Twice in two years those clubs have walked away from their responsibilities, contractual or otherwise. Once could be seen as an accident, but two in two years starts to look like a problem.

The AFLPA has some hard thinking to do, but we think they and their members have a responsibility to see that AFL clubs don’t get used to the notion that they can tear up players’ contracts when it suits them.

No comments:

Contractual responsibilities

Brisbane Lions’ decision not to honour its contract with Brendan Fevola seems a strange one given their recruiting of him only a year ago.

It cannot have escaped the notice of various Lions officials at the time of recruiting him that Fevola had recently had a number of public ‘errors of judgement’. Goodness knows what he’s done in more private circumstances. Brisbane can not have harboured any illusions about task they were taking on. It was a high stakes gamble — a generous contract with the promise of high on-field returns, but with the likelihood of a sting in the tail.

In the circumstances, and whatever Fevola’s misdemeanours may have been, AussieRulesBlog finds it incredible that Brisbane can attempt to wash their hands of Fevola. They didn’t create the monster — that responsibility lies with various Carlton coaches and administrations — but they cannot deny that they knew what they were taking on.

Notwithstanding that there are light years of difference between the two in many ways, the positive end to Ben Cousins’ career and Richmond’s show of faith in him contrasts starkly with the situation Fevola now faces. A storied career appears set to end in tatters.

More importantly, and here is a point of synergy with Cousins, football has been the area of Fevola’s life — perhaps the only area — where he has been able to express himself in a way the community has (generally) approved of. It has been clear that the chance to return to AFL football was an important component of Cousins’ rehabilitation. Fevola, it now seems, won’t be allowed that opportunity.

And what of the Lions’ officials who landed this big fish? Beyond some internal embarrassment, will they bear any opprobrium?

Brisbane may be ridding themselves of a distraction, but they are abrogating, presumably with encouragement from AFL House, a high-profile responsibility they took on only a year ago.

Twice in two years, AFL clubs have taken on a player with known negative issues. Twice in two years those clubs have walked away from their responsibilities, contractual or otherwise. Once could be seen as an accident, but two in two years starts to look like a problem.

The AFLPA has some hard thinking to do, but we think they and their members have a responsibility to see that AFL clubs don’t get used to the notion that they can tear up players’ contracts when it suits them.

0 comments: