OK guys, let's cool it about this issue. I think it was a bit of mischievous reporting. The attempt was to make it appear that there is a rift, even though the sources referred to in the report insisted it was an amicable "dispute". There is every reason to think that it is just that. After all, if any of you asks for a pay rise, would you say that this is a dispute with your employer? Hardly. The only reason that the word "dispute" comes into it is that the machinery for the issue to be resolved is that a dispute equals a grievance, and a grievance is necessary to invoke the grievance procedure which leads to a quick determination by the AFL. The sides to the "grievance" are really Carlton's General Manager and Eddie's Manager. Eddie nor Pagan nor any of the other players will be involved in it, and it won't cause any problems among the team (unless we get sucked in to having a go at Eddie about it from the stands, or by making poison pen posts on these sites).
The expectation is that whoever wins or loses won't bear any sort of grudge. Carlton benefits by getting an independent determination, so that it can say to Eddie, "Bad luck young fella, but it was worth a try - it wasn't our decision". And if the decision goes in favour of Eddie, then Carlton can pay a further amount which will make Eddie happier and hopefully more productive, without being at risk of the AFL investigating the payment as an illegal overaward payment or insisting that it should be declared under the TPP. There are no losers in this. As stated above, the payment is a small fraction of the TPP anyway.
To understand the context of this "dispute", you have to look at the AFLPA's Collective Bargaining Agreement with the AFL. The relevant bits are as follows:
Quote:
9. PLAYERS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGEIn respect of a Player who is included on the List of an AFL Club before the Player attains the age of 18 years:
(a) the AFL Club which lists the Player shall:
(i) contract the Player for a minimum of two years;
(ii) where the Player moves interstate, provide economy class return airfare tickets for the parents (or two other relatives or persons nominated by the Player) of the Player for two separate occasions to enable those persons to visit the Player during the year of the Player’s first AFL Season; and
(iii) pay reasonable taxi fares necessarily incurred by the Player in attending training, Matches and official AFL Club functions;
11.6 In calculation of the Total Player Payments, the following payments will not be taken into account:
(a) relocation expenses incurred by an AFL Club in respect of an AFL Player pursuant to paragraph 8 of Schedule B;
(b) the cost of air fares and taxi fares paid in accordance with clause 9.1(a)(ii);
…
(k) living expenses paid under paragraph 8.3 of Schedule B.
SCHEDULE B2.1 An AFL Club shall pay each first year draft choice Player it employs in … 2005 ... the base payments and Senior Match payments per Senior Match set out in the following table:
(Base Pay $38,100 plus match pay of $2,150 per game, plus bonuses of $2,000 for playing between 1 and 5 games, $2,000 for playing between 6 and 10 games, and $6,000 for playing more than 11 games).
2.4 A first year draft choice Player shall not be entitled to, nor shall an AFL Club, pay a first year Player more than the amounts prescribed by this paragraph 2, other than:
(a) reasonable relocation expenses and living allowances as set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule B herein;
(b) bereavement assistance of up to $2,000 per Player; and
(c) any incentive bonus a Player receives for finishing in the top ten of the AFL Club’s best and fairest award.
8. Allowances
8.1 Relocation Expenses(a) A first year draft choice Player who is required to relocate as a result of inclusion on the List of an AFL Club ... shall be paid reasonable relocation costs by that AFL Club.
(b) The amount payable under paragraph 8.1(a) shall be limited to:
…
(ii) $6,295 in 2005; …
or such other higher amount as is reasonably determined by the AFL Investigations Manager per Player.
(c) Any such relocation payments made pursuant to this paragraph 8.1 shall be excluded from the Total Player Payments of an AFL Club, provided the costs are considered by the AFL Investigations Manager to be reasonable bona fide relocation costs.
8.3 Living Allowance(a) Where a Player is required to relocate, an AFL Club may pay a living allowance to first year draft choice Players of no more than:
…
(ii) $6,295 in 2005 …
per Player.
(b) Any such payment will be excluded in the Total Player Payments of an AFL Club.
As you can see from the above, if he is to be treated as a Victorian recruit, the Club IS NOT PERMITTED to give him any of the following:
(1) return economy tickets to his parents (or 2 other relatives) to visit Eddie on 2 occasions over the football year;
(2) tickets, or money to buy those tickets, to Eddie to allow him to visit his family in WA.
I think that Carlton would dearly love to be able to do the above, irrespective of whether he is classed as a Victorian or Interstate recruit. He is an aboriginal player, and only those close to him know how steeped in the aboriginal culture he is. I would guess, however, that being from WA he has strong cultural and family links to his home, and is likely to be more homesick than the average non-aboriginal recruit. We don't want to be in a position where, at the end of this year or the next, he demands to be traded to West Coast or Fremantle who would be overjoyed to take him off us given great onfield performances this year. If he is able to visit his family and have them visit him through this year, without it coming out of his base pay, that would strengthen his bond to Carlton.
If Carlton does slip him some tickets without him being declared an interstate recruit, this would be a breach of the rules, whether or not they are declared under the TPP and whether or not they would take us over the salary cap. If caught doing this, we could be sanctioned again.
So, in my view, Carlton would benefit out of him receiving the $6,295 amount for relocation expenses under cl 8.1 and the economy tickets.
On the other hand, the additional amount of up $6,295 for living expenses pursuant to cl 8.3 would be a bit over the top. That clause reads like it is a discretionary amount which the club may pay, but is not required to pay. It also seems that a lesser amount can be paid. The grievance procedure would result in a determination of what amount (if any) is appropriate. If the determination is that he shouldn't get anything as he has relatives here with whom he can stay with (and he has previously done so), then you would expect Eddie to take this on the chin without any fuss. This part of the claim seems to be in the nature of an ambit claim anyway.
So, don't have a go at Eddie because his manager has made this claim. Instead, wish like crazy that he gets the relocation expense, so that he will stay in Motley's nest.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
).