Hall Quits

[pinkemu]

Reminds me of an old classic from the early 80's

YouTube - MISSING PERSONS- DO YOU HEAR ME (WORDS REMIX)

[RedRosie]

Hall on the Footy Show

I guess we may find out more tonight? http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=835198 Should be very interesting ! Will I be on the edge of my seat like at the games thinking, dont do it Baz please dont do it Baz only to see him give Sam a good thump? I dont think so, Do it Do it Do it.

[Lucky Knickers]

Newman's interview technique is so @@@@ing woeful I'm not sure I'll be able to watch.
But yes, if the opportunity presents itself Baz please give Sammy a little jumper punch.

[connolly]

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.

Its not uncommon in these situations for the constructively dismissed employee to be required to sign a Deed of Release which is confidential and which requires the ex-employee to undertake not to criticize their former employer or their agents. We don't know what the agreement is with Hall regarding the payment of his contract and the conditions. As far as making my mind up as soon as i heard Roo's first press conference there was little doubt that one way or another Hall was gone. Its really very simple. The suits wanted him gone and they got their way. A lousy way to treat a player who (in the awful sanctimonious Roos/Kirk new age jargon) "?mbraced" the club. Hall was shafted and no amount of new age touchie feelie puff will change that. No doubt the motive will become obvious in due course.

[DST]

Its not uncommon in these situations for the constructively dismissed employee to be required to sign a Deed of Release which is confidential and which requires the ex-employee to undertake not to criticize their former employer or their agents. We don't know what the agreement is with Hall regarding the payment of his contract and the conditions. As far as making my mind up as soon as i heard Roo's first press conference there was little doubt that one way or another Hall was gone. Its really very simple. The suits wanted him gone and they got their way. A lousy way to treat a player who (in the awful sanctimonious Roos/Kirk new age jargon) "?mbraced" the club. Hall was shafted and no amount of new age touchie feelie puff will change that. No doubt the motive will become obvious in due course.

Roos didn't tell him to punch Staker, Kirk was not behind the grassy knoll when he threw one at Wakelin, nor was the club standing behind him moving his arm at Rutten two weeks ago.

Hall shafted himself and he has no one to blame but himself for a) not seeing out this year and b) failing to get a contract with us or anyone else for that matter next year.

DST

[connolly]

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.

Roos,Kirk and O'Keefe all publicly (why publicly unless to make Hall's position untenable) infered that he should leave. Reason. Not that he had infringed. But that he might in the future. No evidence was suggested that he was psychologically unfit. Vagueness and innuendo. And this from his coach and teamates. Incredibly not one opposing coach had suggested that Hall prsented a risk to the well being of their players. Incredibly no recommendation from the governing body that he be examined for his psychological fitness. He in fact received a light sentence for his latest infringement. He didn't deck someone behind the play. He didn't kick a player down. He didn't break a players jaw. The justification is that he might infringe again in the future. Well that is true of every player. Its true of Solomon. Its true of Mooney. Its true of Brogan. Its true of Brown. So the standard is that clubs will publicly discuss a players suitability to play football before they talk to the player? What other player in the history of the game has been subjected to this extraordinary treatment? Just one name will do. A standard and penalty has been imposed that has never existed in the game. If Hall had breached his contract why not just terminate his contract? He hadn't so the smarties pressured him out.
We saw this week a dismissal of a star player Lote Tuquire in rugby union which has led to an unfair dismissal application in the Supreme Court and a rebellion amongst the players. And we have seen a constructive dismissal of Hall. Much smarter but still harsh and unfair. This whole charade will be exposed if Hall plays for another club next season. Hope he does. And clears the stain that has been put on his reputation not by the opposition but by his own club.

[connolly]

Roos didn't tell him to punch Staker, Kirk was not behind the grassy knoll when he threw one at Wakelin, nor was the club standing behind him moving his arm at Rutten two weeks ago.

Hall shafted himself and he has no one to blame but himself for a) not seeing out this year and b) failing to get a contract with us or anyone else for that matter next year.

DST

The club won a premiership because of his aggression, strength and intimidation of the opposition. I haven't the time to check the posts in 2005 but did you support his disqualification when he punched McGuire in the guts? No the club paid a QC to argue that he should playWhat about when he coat hangered Wirrapunda in the Grand Final? Did you condemn that aggression? Made a number of the Eagles have a look for the rest of the game. This club has double standards. OK to keep playing after belting a bloke when he can win us a Grand Final but not OK when we are out of the hunt. Stinking hypocracy.

[Big Al]

Its not uncommon in these situations for the constructively dismissed employee to be required to sign a Deed of Release which is confidential and which requires the ex-employee to undertake not to criticize their former employer or their agents. We don't know what the agreement is with Hall regarding the payment of his contract and the conditions. As far as making my mind up as soon as i heard Roo's first press conference there was little doubt that one way or another Hall was gone. Its really very simple. The suits wanted him gone and they got their way. A lousy way to treat a player who (in the awful sanctimonious Roos/Kirk new age jargon) "?mbraced" the club. Hall was shafted and no amount of new age touchie feelie puff will change that. No doubt the motive will become obvious in due course.

Well Hall is a sensational Actor then because what I saw at that press conference was a RELIEVED man not one under duress or being forced to tor the company line. (Again I point you to the Sheedy press conference for the remarkable contrast)

Anyway you still won't address that Hall was the master of his own demise.

[connolly]

Well Hall is a sensational Actor then because what I saw at that press conference was a RELIEVED man not one under duress or being forced to tor the company line. (Again I point you to the Sheedy press conference for the remarkable contrast)

Anyway you still won't address that Hall was the master of his own demise.

I think I have already said that Hall is a player that has to play with aggression. That is the way he is made. He isn't the only player in the competition like that. They walk the line every time they play. Sometimes they step over it. For anyone to claim that they didn't know this about Hall when he was recruited is astonishing. By the way did you support Hall's disqualification and retirement from the game when he punched McGuire hard enough in the stomach to bring him down? If you didn't then why do you now? Only those Bloods officials and supporters who clamoured for his disqualification from the game and his contract to be torn up in 2005 can claim any sort of consistency. I don't recall one club official or supporter who suggested he be psychologically tested and rubbed out. And his disqualification record was worse then than now. The small matter of a premiership.

[Nico]

My spin on all this is that after the Staker then Wakelin incidents his contract was adjusted to add a clause that said "one more strike and you're out".

[Midfield]

Roos,Kirk and O'Keefe all publicly (why publicly unless to make Hall's position untenable) infered that he should leave. Reason. Not that he had infringed. But that he might in the future. No evidence was suggested that he was psychologically unfit. Vagueness and innuendo. And this from his coach and teamates. Incredibly not one opposing coach had suggested that Hall prsented a risk to the well being of their players. Incredibly no recommendation from the governing body that he be examined for his psychological fitness. He in fact received a light sentence for his latest infringement. He didn't deck someone behind the play. He didn't kick a player down. He didn't break a players jaw. The justification is that he might infringe again in the future. Well that is true of every player. Its true of Solomon. Its true of Mooney. Its true of Brogan. Its true of Brown. So the standard is that clubs will publicly discuss a players suitability to play football before they talk to the player? What other player in the history of the game has been subjected to this extraordinary treatment? Just one name will do. A standard and penalty has been imposed that has never existed in the game. If Hall had breached his contract why not just terminate his contract? He hadn't so the smarties pressured him out.
We saw this week a dismissal of a star player Lote Tuquire in rugby union which has led to an unfair dismissal application in the Supreme Court and a rebellion amongst the players. And we have seen a constructive dismissal of Hall. Much smarter but still harsh and unfair. This whole charade will be exposed if Hall plays for another club next season. Hope he does. And clears the stain that has been put on his reputation not by the opposition but by his own club.

Sorry, but i cannot agree that they pressured him out of the contract. If the circumstances were different and (a) the contract had another 3 years to run at $500k/year and (b) the club expressed an intention that Barry would be playing reserves indefinitely, then sure it would be arguable that the club created a situation that lead to the contract being terminated.

In this instance the club has nothing to gain from terminating the contract as the term was due to expire in 8 weeks. I'm with you that what the club did was the wrong thing by a champion, but its not 'illegal'. Sure, the club made it pretty clear that he would not be playing again this year, but the club can do that (given Barrys conduct) and such does not equate to an intention to terminate his contract, just an intention not to play him in the seniors until he can play by team rules.

[hot potato]

If the Rutten incident had been within three of weeks of a Swans final 09, he would not have been under any pressure to bow out in this fashion.

[BSA5]

I think I have already said that Hall is a player that has to play with aggression. That is the way he is made. He isn't the only player in the competition like that. They walk the line every time they play. Sometimes they step over it. For anyone to claim that they didn't know this about Hall when he was recruited is astonishing. By the way did you support Hall's disqualification and retirement from the game when he punched McGuire hard enough in the stomach to bring him down? If you didn't then why do you now? Only those Bloods officials and supporters who clamoured for his disqualification from the game and his contract to be torn up in 2005 can claim any sort of consistency. I don't recall one club official or supporter who suggested he be psychologically tested and rubbed out. And his disqualification record was worse then than now. The small matter of a premiership.

Bull@@@@. You know as well as anybody the situation was different. The Staker incident is easily the worst I've seen on a footy field, and many older and far more experienced footy watchers will agree. You yourself constantly harp on about Leigh Matthews and his thuggery, well what about Bazza?

There is a huge difference between a love tap used as a way of getting rid of an opponent (thought out, purposeful, controlled, cheap) and a genuine punch to an opponent's jaw (instinctive, purposeless, uncontrolled, violent). Wondering which punch I'm talking about? Doesn't matter. They only vary in intensity, the nature is the same. That's my point. Staker, Rutten, (almost) Wakelin. These are vastly different acts to the occasional cheap but controlled acts of aggression of earlier Hall (which are cases of him just crossing the line, and which, while I didn't like, I didn't have a problem with in the scheme of things for precisely the reasons you have mentioned).

Hall's three most recent acts were not the acts of an aggressive player whose aggressive play was taken too far. These were acts of uncontrolled violence. Only the Staker one had any real force behind it, but they were all uncontrolled, and reflected a violent, uncontrolled mindset. And THAT is, purely and simply, dangerous.

[RedRosie]

Didnt seem to be any 'acting' by Barry on the footy show. All he is is down on himself, not blaming anybody except himself, doesnt want to play against the Swans in another team because of his feelings towards the club. We need a crying smilie choice because I need to insert one. Perhaps we keep him to coach the youngsters.

[connolly]

Bull@@@@. You know as well as anybody the situation was different. The Staker incident is easily the worst I've seen on a footy field, and many older and far more experienced footy watchers will agree. You yourself constantly harp on about Leigh Matthews and his thuggery, well what about Bazza?

There is a huge difference between a love tap used as a way of getting rid of an opponent (thought out, purposeful, controlled, cheap) and a genuine punch to an opponent's jaw (instinctive, purposeless, uncontrolled, violent). Wondering which punch I'm talking about? Doesn't matter. They only vary in intensity, the nature is the same. That's my point. Staker, Rutten, (almost) Wakelin. These are vastly different acts to the occasional cheap but controlled acts of aggression of earlier Hall (which are cases of him just crossing the line, and which, while I didn't like, I didn't have a problem with in the scheme of things for precisely the reasons you have mentioned).

Hall's three most recent acts were not the acts of an aggressive player whose aggressive play was taken too far. These were acts of uncontrolled violence. Only the Staker one had any real force behind it, but they were all uncontrolled, and reflected a violent, uncontrolled mindset. And THAT is, purely and simply, dangerous.

The three breaches of the rules were all different. The Staker punch was violent and dangerous. The Wakelin swing was an act of frustration which the Collingwood player milked. The Rutten "punch"was actually pulled. Hall has not been on some uncontrolled psychopathic rampage. He has on occassions been frustrated and he has overstepped the line badly on one occasion, pulled a punch on another and marginally trangressed on another. Hall has never played with calculated aggression. He has always played on the borderline with a barely restrained aggression. That is what made him such an intimidating footballer. Thats why we recruited him.
Are suggesting that the McGuire punch was a calculated "love tap" in the match before a Grand Final? Some calculation. The point i was making was the hypocracy of the club. The attitude towards the McGuire punch and the Rutten "jab"was completely different. Lets do a hypothetical. If Hall had hit Rutten the week before a Grand Final would the attitude of the club been different? If you say it would have been the same you are having a laugh.