Hall Quits

[DST]

I finally got to watch the press conference and I'm even more astonished at those who see the club at fault here. Hall made the decision to pull the pin because he doesn't trust himself and he said that another incident could be "catastrophic".

Halls body language and his own words seem to indicate that he was comfortable with the decision he has made.

As Roosy said we wouldn't have won a flag without him so Hally, all the best mate and I wish you all the best in your future endeavours.

Couldn't agree more.

From the looks of it Barry was actually releived to be pointed in the right direction and is comfortable in the knowledge that he can now go and pursue another career (possibly boxing).

Everyone involved at the club and Hall himself have approached this decision with the up most respect for each other and dignity.

Anyone that says otherwise have their hand on it.

DST

[connolly]

Yes, it's tough. Life is tough sometimes.

I've been following this thread all day, and Alibi Monday's comment seemed to make the most rational sense.

Yes well Alibi is most appropriate. Just a few questions. Did Halls contract have monetary penalties over and above what he suffered by not playing? Because if they didn't everything that has come out of the ashram is just spin. If you were really trying to control a professional sportsmans behaviour you would insist on inserting a term in his contract that he forfets 20% (or some figure) of his remuneration if he transgesses. Was that in his contract? Did they pay Hall during his club suspension? Did they try to re-negotiate his contract after the suspension with hefty penalty clauses? Was this put in any of his contracts? Was it offered to Hall as an option to a public show trial and ritual humiliation? If the club didn't pursue this option everything that Roos said at the press conference is a charade and a farce.

[Melbournehammer]

this legal stuff, while interesting no doubt to those of us who practice in the arcane arts, is pretty pointless. I suspect that you will find that there is a legal deal at the bottom of this including a deed of release.

i am more interested in what the whole event says about the club, list management, etc etc. To go to Anni/Alibi's points - we have saved the club by showing strong leadership.

My own view for what it is worth is that this has been an annus horribilis for the club. The loss of fosdike, tadgh (regardless of whether an actionable breach of contract occured) was bad enough given how it left the state of the list.

Losing Mick was expected but to then lose BBBH within two weeks does remind one of the Oscar Wilde comment about cufflinks (to lose one is an error to lose two smacks of carelessness)

This in the face of the keeping players such as Playfair, Leo and Crouch who are frankly old and struggling to play any sequence of games whatsoever (even accepting Crouch's miracle like healing powers from years gone by).

I am still of the view that not letting Barry play a final game with his teammates was wrong, but i am beginning to wonder about our strategies generally. I can foresee the mother of all cleanouts.

This situation I think must be reflected in what was described elsewhere as just how done Collless was at the Lunch at the game. i suspect that these conversations and issues were all starting to come clear.

We have the highest (or close to it) paid football department in the comp. I think we will soon know what they are made of.

[connolly]

Couldn't agree more.

From the looks of it Barry was actually releived to be pointed in the right direction and is comfortable in the knowledge that he can now go and pursue another career (possibly boxing).

Everyone involved at the club and Hall himself have approached this decision with the up most respect for each other and dignity.

Anyone that says otherwise have their hand on it.

DST

I would like anyone who repeats that bit of old rope to have their hand on it. Preferably a Bible.

[Primmy]

HILARIOUS!!! All of it. We should publish a book of this thread and present it to Mr Hall at part of his retirement present from the people.

[Lohengrin]

I rest my case.

Absolute quality post!

[Yakety_Yak]

I think you mean that there was a premature conjectulate. I hadn't actually looked at the Castle as a precedent before. I think you miss the point. Its not what Hall said at the showtrial press conference but it is the unreasonable pressure that was placed on him to resign. And that is available. The comments of Roos, Kirk and O'Keefe were clearly designed to put pressure on Hall to resign. As for resting your case there is no need to bother. It expired well before you finished.

It was abit of fun.

I don't come here often but when I do I note you sprout with glee your legal "wisdom", which I am not surprised bores others.

It does not add to your OPINION!

The same "clearly designed comments" could be SINCERE and I doubt Kirk ROK or Roos is going to put hand on bible in court and then say it was all a big conspiracy !

Would you like a slab of beer bet.... on whether Hall will engage you or a more competent counsel ... to seek reinstatement or damages for "unfair" or " constructive" dismissal?

Nah ...I didn't think so!

Thanks for the LOL!

[Xie Shan]

Saw it coming. Still sad and annoying, but not particularly surprising.

Yep. I'd more or less factored in Hall and MO'L retiring at the end of the year anyway, they've both given us so much over the years and yes they can still play a bit but I think both have made the right call. Shame for Hall to go out like this as he probably has another year or so of good footy still in him, but you don't have to be a genius to see that things just weren't working out for him at the club anymore. Not getting involved in the slanging match about who's to blame. Doubt another club will pick him up. Terrific player, and in hindsight it was the disappointment of 2006 and the rule change that were probably the two main (observable) factors in his decline.

[Cheer Squad]

I saw Hall with his girlfriend today at Westfield in Bondi Junction. He had a kind of dazed look on his face, as if the enormity of what he's done was only just starting to sink in. He was given something of a wide berth by the other shoppers.

[Big Al]

I saw Hall with his girlfriend today at Westfield in Bondi Junction. He had a kind of dazed look on his face, as if the enormity of what he's done was only just starting to sink in. He was given something of a wide berth by the other shoppers.

I always have a dazed look on my face when I'm shopping with a women so you may be reading a bit too much into it.

[giant]

Could he just be a RUNNER, that would be intimidating enough for our opponents...

Nice work. More like this please....

[Vonsteinman]

This ?hung out to dry? business being thrown up on this forum is such a load of rubbish. Once again it?s a case of a few people claiming they know what?s going on inside the football club better than those in the club itself.

No doubt this will lead to me being tarred as ?na?ve? by some of the omniscient posters of RWO, but I seriously can?t see how anyone can think Hall has been dudded by the club.

All the way through his trials and tribulations, the first to speak for him have been the likes of Paul Roos and Brett Kirk? whether it be in front of the media, to the AFL or to that @@@@wit who, IMHO, can possibly claim the greatest responsibility for Hall?s demise, Jeff Gieschen.

It hurts me to see this happening as much as most on this forum but anyone who has played competitive team sport to any level ? and particularly in a team that has experienced any success, much less the achievement of the ?05 premiership ? would know that Roos and Kirk would be incapable of doing what has been suggested by some in this thread.

I can imagine a conversation between Hall and Roos taking place recently along the lines of the following:

Roos: ?Listen mate, for the rest of your career, as many as three defenders will be allowed to use you as a jungle gym every time you go for the pill. And if you so much as throw your hands in the air in despair, the umpire is going to be on your case and a mosquito fleet of opponents are gonna come up and get in your face. Are you in any way capable of dealing with that without snapping??

Hall: ?Nup.?

Sadly, that?s football as Barry Hall knows it these days. It?s a @@@@ing disgrace, it?s not Hall?s fault but neither is it the fault of Brett Kirk, Paul Roos, Ryan O?Keefe or anyone else at the club.

Now, I?m off to the TV room to watch the last quarter of ?05GF again and remember the big fella playing, and dealing with his teammates and coach the way I want to. I humbly suggest that some of you do the same?

[Big Al]

Was it offered to Hall as an option to a public show trial and ritual humiliation? If the club didn't pursue this option everything that Roos said at the press conference is a charade and a farce.

Did Hall look humiliated to you in that press conference? He looked relieved to me.

Tell you what, if you can find it, watch the press conference when Sheedy was sacked and compare it to Hall's. It's like chalk and cheese. Hall clearly had a weight lifted from his shoulders.

I hope I'm wrong but you seem to have formed these opinions BEFORE Hall made the decision but was too proud to admit you might be mistaken.

[pinkemu]

It should have ended like this.


YouTube - Barry Hall's last kick for the saints

[Midfield]

Son thats true but its an issue of breach of contract not whats in it. Employment law is a branch of contract law and equity. For many years the law has recognised the concept of constructive dismissal. Its really quite interesting. The law in regard to the correct test for constructive dismissal is set out in Allison v Bega Valley Council (1995) 63 IR 68 (there is no link to AUSTLII) but there are several precedent references where a Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Court of New South Wales (Peterson and Marks JJ, and Connor CC) said (at pp 72-73) :
?It is a trite observation that a contract of employment like any contract can come to an end in a number of ways. Termination can be "by" the employer where an employee is "dismissed" either with notice in accordance with the provisions of the contract or without notice in the event of serious and wilful misconduct. Both the employer and the employee may mutually agree that the contract of employment should come to an end. In other cases the employee may bring about the termination by resigning.
In some cases the circumstances in which the termination comes about makes it difficult to determine whether there was termination "by" the employer or the employee. There are cases where the courts, after analysis, have determined that although on the face of it an employee has resigned and brought about the termination of the contract of employment, in reality the conduct of the employer has compelled or unduly influenced the employee to resign. The most quoted example is an assertion by an employer to an employee to the effect that the employee must resign or he or she will be dismissed. This situation is commonly referred to in the text books and decided cases as a "constructive dismissal", that is in effect the employer has brought about the termination of the contract of employment.
Although the term "constructive dismissal" is quite commonly used it can deflect attention from the real inquiry. That inquiry should involve an analysis of what occurred. Did the employer behave in such a way so as to render the employer's conduct the real and effective initiator of the termination of the contract of employment and was this so despite on the face of it the employee appears to have given his or her resignation?
It is obvious that a consideration of these matters must be made on a case-by-case basis and that an attempt to formulate general principles in the absence of particular facts will not assist in the overall determination of this issue.
In order to undertake the necessary analysis it is necessary to look carefully at all the relevant facts. It is necessary to determine whether the actual determination was effectively initiated by the employer or by the employee particularly where the dynamics within a factual situation may change. For example, an employer may demand a resignation with a threat of dismissal, negotiations may then ensue and the employee may ultimately be genuinely pleased with the outcome of those negotiations to the extent that any resultant resignation may be said to be given freely and without any undue influence being brought to bear by the employer.
Where an employee initiates the termination of the contract of employment it is necessary to consider whether that ostensible act of termination was give freely and without any undue pressure. If the ostensible resignation is, in effect, a response to and consistent with a desire by an employer that such resignation be forthcoming, then what has occurred may be that the termination has been brought about by the employer and that in this way the employee has been dismissed.

The concept of constructive dismissal implies the existence of conduct on the part of an employer which is plainly contrary to the continuance of a contract of employment by its express or implied terms. The authorities (haven't the time to drag them out but i will later if you are still interested) establish the concept that there is implied in a contract of employment a term that the employer will not, without reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee. An intention to repudiate the contract doesn't have to be proved. Rather, it is a matter of objectively looking at the employer's conduct as a whole and determining whether its effect, judged reasonably and sensibly, is such that the employee cant be expected to put up with it.
Now do ya reckon Hall was constructively dismissed?

In my respectful opinion your Honour, this is not a case of constructive dismissal. Applying the test, how can it be said that the conduct of the employer was contrary to the continuation to the contract? Counsel for the Applicant points to the media statements of other respected employee's, but these statements do not go to the continuation of the Applicant's contract, but rather to the continuation of the employee's role in the team. It can hardly be said your Honour, that a player out of form and banished to the reserves team could be successful in an action for unfair dismissal, constructive or otherwise, by the coach stating publicly that there is no role for that player until his form improves.

As my friend has suggested, judged reasonably and sensibly, is the employers conduct such that the employee cant be expected to put up with it?

Again, the statements presented by the Applicant are honest appraisals of the employee's conduct by well respected members of the club. The employee is engaged in a field in which such criticism is part of the job, the employee faces it every day - from the media, the supporters, players, coaches and ultimately the employer.

No further evidence is presented by the Applicant apart from these statements and it is useful to note the context in which these statements were made. As your are aware your Honour, the statements follow a clear breach of the games rules, being a sneaky one to the chin of opposition player Rutten. The breach resulted in the employee being sanctioned by the governing body by way of a two match suspension.

The sanction meant that the employee could not engage in the pursuit in which employer had contracted him for - winning football games. In my respectful opinion your Honour, in these circumstances a reasonable person would expect the type of conduct from the Respondent which is the subject to these proceedings. Could the Applicant be expected to put with it? Yes.