Respect for delisted players.

[Rosy]

It seems different clubs are handling the delisting of players in different ways.  Collingwood, for example have named half a dozen players who've been told their services aren't required any more.  Richmond has announced that players know where they stand but the delistings won't be announced before the due time in several weeks.

I wonder where this leaves the players.  I've heard from a couple of sources that 3 of our players didn't attend the end of season trip because they won't be around next season. I won't name those involved or people on BLOS will be convinced I am The Boss. ;D

If it's true I don't know if it's an individual player decision or one made by the club as I've been told.  I could be barking up the wrong tree here but have made an effort to clarify with the club.  I would have thought everyone on the list this year should have been welcome on the trip and I'd feel sorry if anybody was prevented from attending..

I'm in favour the Collingwood approach because it saves a lot of speculation and public debate in regard to players who have for all intents and purposes left the building already.

Would be interested to know if others think there should be an immediate announcement once players are told they won't be around next year or whether it's better to keep it in house until the last minute. I just think withholding the info  puts the players in an unnecessarily awkward and possibly embarrassing position.

 

[thejinx]

I think not announcing who's delisted before the trade period is good for the club. Gives them more bargaining power at the table because the opposition doesn't know who we're going to get rid of anyway.

 

[geoffryprettyboy]

I think not announcing who's delisted before the trade period is good for the club. Gives them more bargaining power at the table because the opposition doesn't know who we're going to get rid of anyway.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Let me add one more, and this one's from left field.

Maybe everyone knows at the club who has been delisted, but TW is just testing the integrity of the 'whole' team.

 

[craig]

I tend to believe that we also should announce who is gone so that they can approach other clubs or be free to be approached by other clubs to allow them to settle their futures, families, and their livelihoods.

 

[Darth Tiger]

RFC really hasn't been a nursery for other clubs to raid.

If a player has been told that he will be cut loose at the end of his contract, why not let him pursue other options eg. nominating for the PSD or coaching a country team where he can freely view them if they are playing finals and commence negotiations.

Does the standard AFLPA contract have a notice of termination clause for advising non-renewal ?

 

[DragicevicFan]

Disappointing that the 3 players we all know are delisted were not able to go on the end of season trip. Regardless of their future with the club, they should have gone with the rest of the playing group.

 

[Tubytiger]

Disappointing that the 3 players we all know are delisted were not able to go on the end of season trip. Regardless of their future with the club, they should have gone with the rest of the playing group.

If this is true then it is disappointing. BUT being a delisted player, would you want to go on the trip. After such a devastation would you really consider going on the trip. Very interesting question really......

 

[sucker4richond]

i care about who they are not how they are treated

 

[craig]

OK with all due respect to the duds SEE YA TA TAA :hihi

 

[Richmond United]

I would rather supporters show their respect to listed players throughout the yr!

 

[pahoffm]

It seems different clubs are handling the delisting of players in different ways.  Collingwood, for example have named half a dozen players who've been told their services aren't required any more.  Richmond has announced that players know where they stand but the delistings won't be announced before the due time in several weeks.

I wonder where this leaves the players.  I've heard from a couple of sources that 3 of our players didn't attend the end of season trip because they won't be around next season. I won't name those involved or people on BLOS will be convinced I am The Boss. ;D

If it's true I don't know if it's an individual player decision or one made by the club as I've been told.  I could be barking up the wrong tree here but have made an effort to clarify with the club.  I would have thought everyone on the list this year should have been welcome on the trip and I'd feel sorry if anybody was prevented from attending..

I'm in favour the Collingwood approach because it saves a lot of speculation and public debate in regard to players who have for all intents and purposes left the building already.

Would be interested to know if others think there should be an immediate announcement once players are told they won't be around next year or whether it's better to keep it in house until the last minute. I just think withholding the info  puts the players in an unnecessarily awkward and possibly embarrassing position.

See your point Rosy,

But players on the list are still an asset to the club.
If the club can help them to find employment elsewhere, through a trade, then that is to the players', as well as the club's, benefit.
Surely the esteem and the value of any player is maximised whilst they are still on the list.
As soon as players are dropped off the list, their ability to negotiate reemployment at the same level becomes significantly harder.

 

[Rosy]

I agree with that Phantom to a degree but the players should be welcome on the end of season trip and I'm led to believe, and I'd love it to be incorrect, that wasn't the case.

 

[pahoffm]

I agree with that Phantom to a degree but the players should be welcome on the end of season trip and I'm led to believe, and I'd love it to be incorrect,  that wasn't the case. 

I don't know the circumstances of the end of season trip, either way.

 

[tiger1980]

I agree with that Phantom to a degree but the players should be welcome on the end of season trip and I'm led to believe, and I'd love it to be incorrect,  that wasn't the case. 

Was it fellow players who did not want them on the footy trip or the club?

 

[shawry]

They should have been allowed to be on the trip. I think it is sad otherwise, it is with their mates they have played a long season with. Very harsh if true they were not allowed to go.

 

[Brettstigers]

Re: the end of season trip - Sounds hard but list changes happen at every club, every year. Its a fact of playing AFL. There is no way that a player who has been cut wouldn't be hurt, worried about his future and a little bit or even a lot angry. Those negative emotions will be almost impossible to release and forget about for more than a few hours since everyone around them re-emphasises what they have lost. Every other player on the trip will know that those players are gone and will empathise with them - big time.

I don't know about you but looking at an upset friend every day isn't how I want to spend my vacation - as shallow as that may sound. They can't go on the trip after they have been told they have no future. And could they enjoy the trip not knowing if they did or didn't have a future?

Sounds harsh but it is probably the right decision and isn't a player respect issue. Respect to a departing player can be shown in other ways.

 

[Stuart]

End of season trips (footy trips), are exactly that end of season trips. They have been their for the whole season with their mates so why shouldn't they go. These guys are adults, if they have or are getting the flick, life goes on. Go & enjoy yourself on the holiday with your mates. You're (ex) teammates didn't get rid of you, it was the football dept.
If the playing group decided they didn't want players whose futures have already been decided on the trip, they need to wake up to themselves, it will be their turn one day. End of season trips, at whatever level, are for the playing list of that year to enjoy together.
As for looking at an upset team mate, after a day on the p!$$, they will be more interested in chasing skirt, than where they will be kicking a footy next year. That will get sorted out once they meet with their managers next year.

 

[BBC]

This is a sensitive issue about going public or not with delistings.

I am happy that we are making the players aware of their situations straight after the season because I think being left in limbo post season is disrespectful.

If the players who are not going to be part of 2006 at Tigerland choose to go on the post season trip that is their choice otherwise they can prepare for the next chapter in their life. Some can elect to continue training to maximaise their chances of being re-drafted. Others can begin looking for a job or course to study.

The delistings being kept quiet is fine with me. I mean it's not big news is it really if the last 3-6 players on our list are delisted.

 

[Skills]

I think not announcing who's delisted before the trade period is good for the club. Gives them more bargaining power at the table because the opposition doesn't know who we're going to get rid of anyway.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Let me add one more, and this one's from left field.

Maybe everyone knows at the club who has been delisted, but TW is just testing the integrity of the 'whole' team.

Have to disagree gpb;
The players already delisted, have spoken to close friends & family;
It's hard to put a test on the integrity of the other players, when the communication channels are being opened from other avenues.