Hall Quits

[Lohengrin]

Thought so.

You didn't answer my question.

[Big Al]

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.

[connolly]

You didn't answer my question.

You didn't answer mine.

[Lohengrin]

You didn't answer mine.

My question went to the heart of yours. What is the point of him taking action if he is paid out of his contract? What will he achieve?

[AnnieH]

I'm a little confused why so many are complaining about the way the club's handled this and that they've made Hall some kind of pariah. I think Roos, Kirk et al are trying their very best to preserve the bloods ethos but holding players, irrelevant of their playing stature, accountable. This is a demonstration that in fact it hasn't deteriorated. Behaviour of senior players is very influencial to the culture of the club and plays a big part in the shaping the attitudes of the younger teammates. Hall knows that. Kirk knows that. ROK knows it. Vez knows it. Roos knows it.

Hall's provided the absolute best outcome for the club from the position he'd alone placed them in. It shows tremendous character that he's managed to navigate out of the tricky position where the club would have had to oust one of their favourite sons. If the club didn't take action and Hall chose to remain, then the Bloods ethos would be in disrepute by choosing to accept Hall's behaviour. If it's discipline is toothless, then it would be disrespected internally. Hall has also managed to avoid the indignity of being asked to leave which would have left a lasting bitter taste for the rest of his life and a ghost forever haunting the club's 2005 premiership success. It's for this alone that I stand up and salute Barry Hall for his courage and leadership. Make no mistake, Barry Hall has just pulled off his toughest and most outstanding leadership role since he's been at the club.

However, please don't mistake this as Hall coping one on the chin to save Roos and Kirk. They've been just as strong. In the face of adversity they've managed cement the principles this club stands for both privately and publicly. They didn't ask for this. No one would want this. There's genuine emotions there. They were forced to face it by Hall's inability to match his commitment with his instincts. Actions from Hall that placed his mates in the terrible position of choosing between his welfare and the club's welfare.

Whilst the whole tale is one of sorrow, Hall, the club and the ethos are all still intact when at nearly every other club, at least one of them would capitulated under this pressure. That's the sign of a very strong club building very strong leaders.

It's just such a personal shame for the guys and Hall that they don't get to pull on the boots one last time together at the SCG. He's deserves a standing ovation for everything he's done for everyone of us here. A true hero who genuinely deserves to be chaired off the ground by his mates.

One of the greatest I've seen play for the club. Thanks for the memories and good luck.

Right on.

[AnnieH]

Duty of care anyone??

[johnno]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I apologise if this has already been asked, my question is....let's say some absolute miracle happens and the swans go on an amazing winning streak and make the grand final(wouldn't that be nice), are we allowed to play Hall in the granny?

[connolly]

Right on.

But Annie a girl beater is allowed to play on for the Crows, the "recovering" little champ plays on, a maggot mate of the Hells Angel that took a few pops at the coppers plays on and the big bloke is put in the naughty corner and his career ended, Mooney is whacking blokes all the time and there are blokes that have thrown plenty of cut lunches still playing (Solomon), the Saints have a ruckman that kicked a bloke in the head and broke his jaw and another with real problems. Just one question. What did he really do to deserve to be finished up? It can't be two punches (one a pulled jab) and an air swing. Because if that is the excuse thats an insult to even Dick's intelligence. And not to let him play one last game with Magic is just cruel. Tough love indeed.

[goswannies]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I apologise if this has already been asked, my question is....let's say some absolute miracle happens and the swans go on an amazing winning streak and make the grand final(wouldn't that be nice), are we allowed to play Hall in the granny?

Although I'm not certain, I believe yes, as long as the Swans don't de-list him. Same as Fozzie and (dare I say it for fear of you slagging him off for another 80 postings in this thread) Tadhg are still considered part of the list until their contracts expire (ie they can also be re-signed - as has been suggested for one of those 3, but I insist you leave that alone as you opinion on this issue has been previously noted).

[AnnieH]

But Annie a girl beater is allowed to play on for the Crows, the "recovering" little champ plays on, a maggot mate of the Hells Angel that took a few pops at the coppers plays on and the big bloke is put in the naughty corner and his career ended, Mooney is whacking blokes all the time and there are blokes that have thrown plenty of cut lunches still playing (Solomon), the Saints have a ruckman that kicked a bloke in the head and broke his jaw and another with real problems. Just one question. What did he really do to deserve to be finished up? It can't be two punches (one a pulled jab) and an air swing. Because if that is the excuse thats an insult to even Dick's intelligence. And not to let him play one last game with Magic is just cruel. Tough love indeed.

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

What other clubs do with their players and their issues is not our problem. We have enough problems of our own. We all know the maggots hate us (especially Blind Barry) and I have offered on numerous occasions to stand at the gates of each game and take gold coin donations to pay the fines that Roosey will cop when and if he complained about the shoddy umpiring decisions that go against us.

We all know Blind Barry hasn't been "quite right" since the end of 2006. (Personally, I think he lost it the week after he signed his $2M contract.)

For ME, the perceived "bloods ethos" is all about how we present ourselves on the field. OK, we may not have won too many premierships, but I'm certainly proud of the fact that we, as a club, have produced the most Brownlow medalists since the inception of the award. To me, that says we are the best and fairest team in the competition.

ALIBI MONDAY: I'm a little confused why so many are complaining about the way the club's handled this and that they've made Hall some kind of pariah. I think Roos, Kirk et al are trying their very best to preserve the bloods ethos by holding players, irrelevant of their playing stature, accountable. This is a demonstration that in fact it hasn't deteriorated. Behaviour of senior players is very influencial to the culture of the club and plays a big part in the shaping the attitudes of the younger teammates. Hall knows that. Kirk knows that. ROK knows it. Vez knows it. Roos knows it.

I love Blind Barry. I've met him - he's a top bloke. Notwithstanding that, he himself says he has a problem that he can't quite control and would rather leave the club than go through all this @@@@ again. He said that in all likelihood it will happen again. I'm pretty sure it was his decision. I'm also pretty sure the club would have allowed him to play on to the end of the year after his suspension - but would not have signed him again for next year. They're NOT that petty (unless your name is Davo of course).

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

[hot potato]

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

[Primmy]

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

Oh My Gawd!! Never thought of that. Wouldn't that be just delicious! Oh Yes Please.

[johnno]

...again not sure if this has been mentioned or not, but I personally feel Roos and the coaching staff made the decision to get Hall to retire because they know that he wont get a fair deal up forward from the umps, costing us goals, costing us wins, put a new kid up there and start getting those same frees in front of goals that every other team seems to get. This is how it has been put to Hall and he in turn has made the ultimate sacrifice and retired. God bless you Barry.

[Yakety_Yak]

Now do ya reckon Hall was constructively dismissed?

Connolly qc

You have stated several times in the thread that you consider that Barry Hall was "sqeezed out" and likely constructively dismissed.

Therefore I have no need to seek confirmation of your opinion or position.

However:

LOL! your long winded post "That is going straight to the Pool Room."

I note in your provided text:

That inquiry should involve an analysis of what occurred.

In order to undertake the necessary analysis it is necessary to look carefully at all the relevant facts

You QC do not have all the facts but rather jump to a grandiose chest beating display in hope of gaining superiority & respect ...seemingly for your opinion as well as your fragile ego which prickairyously (sic) is balancing on your claimed "knowledge" of law.

Then you babble an unfounded opinion which has nothing to do whatsoever with FACT or law. You don't KNOW the facts....JUST...rather conjectulate(sic)...

..."It's the vibe of the thing, your Honour."


LOL! your own add on comments.. they are straight out of "The Castle"

"express or implied terms"

"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."

Since it is footy lets look at facts we do know!


Barry Halls actions WERE likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee.

What basis could there possibly be for B Hall to claim serious conduct breaches would not happen again?

The Swans team Captain B Kirk (in your terms "co-worker") expressed publicly that he felt he could not trust Hall on the football field. Endorsing the position of "serious damage" to the employer /employee ralationship.

Barry Hall publicly announced he could not trust himself!

What duress was he or could he be possibly under to say/admit that!? Hall was under no compunction ,nor would it in any way enhance his future employment opportunities in football?

He could rather for example simply have said something like, "I can trust myself, but I do not expect the Swans coaches, players, or club to do so, therefore I reluctantly resign!"

Anyway QC

Like Dale..."you dug a hole"
and as Darryl said ..."ya dic khead"


BUT you asked for MY personal (not legal) OPINION is: The Syydney Swans Football Club was and is under no compunction to offer Barry Hall a new contract in 2010. THEREFORE the only consequence of Hall resigning NOW is missing the remaining 2009 games. The club is well justified in not playing himanyway on the basis of repeated uncontrolled breaches of expected conduct.

Before you give any further thesis on law perhaps you should watch the movie again and take note of the advice to legal practitioners to ensure protection for your "fictious client" from backyard pretenders like you.

The Law Council of Australia Model Rules, r 1.1 states: "A practitioner must act ... with competence and diligence in the service of a client, and should accept instructions, and a retainer to act for a client only when the practitioner can reasonably expect to serve the client in that manner...."



I rest my case.

Federal Court Judge: And what Law are you basing this argument on?

(In the immortal Kerrigan words) Yakety_Yak: The Law of bloody common sense!!!!!!!!!!!

[connolly]

Connolly qc

You have stated several times in the thread that you consider that Barry Hall was "sqeezed out" and likely constructively dismissed.

Therefore I have no need to seek confirmation of your opinion or position.

However:

LOL! your long winded post "That is going straight to the Pool Room."

I note in your provided text:



You QC do not have all the facts but rather jump to a grandiose chest beating display in hope of gaining superiority & respect ...seemingly for your opinion as well as your fragile ego which prickairyously (sic) is balancing on your claimed "knowledge" of law.

Then you babble an unfounded opinion which has nothing to do whatsoever with FACT or law. You don't KNOW the facts....JUST...rather conjectulate(sic)...

..."It's the vibe of the thing, your Honour."


LOL! your own add on comments.. they are straight out of "The Castle"

Since it is footy lets look at facts we do know!


Barry Halls actions WERE likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of confidence and trust between employer and employee.

What basis could there possibly be for B Hall to claim serious conduct breaches would not happen again?

The Swans team Captain B Kirk (in your terms "co-worker") expressed publicly that he felt he could not trust Hall on the football field. Endorsing the position of "serious damage" to the employer /employee ralationship.

Barry Hall publicly announced he could not trust himself!

What duress was he or could he be possibly under to say/admit that!? Hall was under no compunction ,nor would it in any way enhance his future employment opportunities in football?

He could rather for example simply have said something like, "I can trust myself, but I do not expect the Swans coaches, players, or club to do so, therefore I reluctantly resign!"

Anyway QC

Like Dale..."you dug a hole"
and as Darryl said ..."ya dic khead"


BUT you asked for MY personal (not legal) OPINION is: The Syydney Swans Football Club was and is under no compunction to offer Barry Hall a new contract in 2010. THEREFORE the only consequence of Hall resigning NOW is missing the remaining 2009 games. The club is well justified in not playing himanyway on the basis of repeated uncontrolled breaches of expected conduct.

Before you give any further thesis on law perhaps you should watch the movie again and take note of the advice to legal practitioners to ensure protection for your "fictious client" from backyard pretenders like you.

The Law Council of Australia Model Rules, r 1.1 states: "A practitioner must act ... with competence and diligence in the service of a client, and should accept instructions, and a retainer to act for a client only when the practitioner can reasonably expect to serve the client in that manner...."



I rest my case.

Federal Court Judge: And what Law are you basing this argument on?

(In the immortal Kerrigan words) Yakety_Yak: The Law of bloody common sense!!!!!!!!!!!

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.