Union told Jake Carlisle's manager not to tell Saints

[saynta]

Go Jakey boy. He will do very well for us. all this negative crap will soon fade away..why? because too many on here have lost hope and tend to talk up the worst.

Go Jakey Boy.

No Firey I disagree with you. And you are one of my favourite posters over the years. So I have to get this off my chest........ sorry it's not a Dolly Parton well endowed bosom!

I have been supporting the Saints since I can first recall the games I went to in about 1952 or 53. However I was told I went in 1950 many a time ........ I was such a tiny tot I must have been more interested in what was on the ground where we stood behind the Junction end goals such as , beer cans for us kids to stand on to see the game, rolled up footy records or daily paper tied up with string for us to kids to kick as only rich kids had a real footy to kick around.

One things we Saints supporters always had was HOPE, we never lost HOPE as you say we are doing now if we don't like Jake Carlilse's method of dudding the Saints. You accuse us of tending to 'talk up the worst'. Hey historically other Clubs laughed at us for years when we supporters after our many times experiencing 'wooden spoons' or defeats in ou few Grand Final appearances we always had our 'War Cry'......... 'There Is Always Next Year'........... Rusted on Sainters have always had HOPE, and IMHO ignore talking up the worst when maybe we should have faced reality, but no we Sainters have hope over the years and have not talked up the worst IMHO

Sure there might be the usual wingers on this site who have a negative Nellie outlook on everything the Saints do, but I would argue they are definitely in the minority. Of recent years.......They grizzled about Tim Watson, the admin taking on Malcolm Blight. Jesus when Grant Thomas & Rod Buttress began to lift our Club up the ladder, they were nervous and became thrilled when that era crumbled. Begrudgingly such supporters went quiet when Lyin nearly got us to the Holy Grail, but then came out with 'I told you so', when we nearly reached the HOPE we all wanted. Yes they are a vociferous lot, and most people know there is a silent majority out there, who will let these garrulous supporters rant on. Supporters who still have HOPE and don't always talk up the WORST.

This issue with Jake Carlilse IMHO is not about giving up HOPE and talking up the WORST . It's about many Saint supporters being HURT over an integrity issue. Being hurt by a player, who for whatever reason showed no loyalty to his Club which admittedly through its own fault is in crisis and Carlilse denigrated it, then showed he would tell a LIE to ensure he could get the best monetary deal out of a new Club he knew wanted a player of his experience. The more that comes out is - our Club has been DUDDED and supporters are angry and hurt, that is a natural response.

If this deceitful player can eventually earn the respect of the STKFC Club and its loyal supporters remains to be seen.

EARN RESPECT is paramount for this cashed up football bogan............. IMHO many Saint supporters won't be saying 'Go Jakey Boy' too readily. The supplements scandal at Essendon over the past 3 years has shown how the AFL can be plunged into depths of concern because of the attitude of 'what ever it takes'. 'Go Jakey Boy', smacks of we Saints supporters will also turn a blind eye and accept 'whatever it takes' because Carlilse might give us an edge on the field. I think our supporters have more moral fibre than that.

Hey he hasn't even played consistent good football for Essendon over the past 2 seasons. Why would one think he could walk straight into the St Kilda team and be a star? He needs to earn a spot in the team & and more importantly earn RESPECT within the whole St Kilda community............ then Saints supporters might say 'Go Jakey Boy'. IMHO our Club stands for Ingegrity before Expediency!

My rant is over Firey!!!

And a well said rant too.

[BigMart]

I think sometimes negativity and reality get confused.

In 2009 it was pointed out that our trading and drafting that year was appalling ... That was negativity

5 years later it was reality

In the same period it was pointed out that our development was being overlooked (Armitage in particular) ... That was negativity

5 years later it was accepted

A bit earlier it was pointed out that our decision to abandon Tassie was shortsighted and knee jerk (let alone disrespectful) .... That was negative.

5 years later it was accepted

Chris Pelchen was labelled as a devisive influence ... Negative. Was sacked

In a couple of years it will be accepted

I think hope is a dangerous thing, it can distort reality.... Small eg/ we hope Blake Acres develops, and after showing very little.... We tend to think he's going to be a gun. We jump on bandwagons, form popular opinions... IE/ 2012 Arryn Sipposs was going to be a gun, 2 years later he was hopeless (he didn't change, just popular opinion)
We are like sheep... Following blindly and hoping for successes

But reality sets in and we are forced to change our opinion, but only when it becomes accepted popular opinion.

Negative nellies... Sometimes turn out to be correct in there views... Not sure it's vindicated though, others just accept and pretend they always were of that opinion.

[markp]

I think sometimes negativity and reality get confused.

In 2009 it was pointed out that our trading and drafting that year was appalling ... That was negativity

5 years later it was reality

In the same period it was pointed out that our development was being overlooked (Armitage in particular) ... That was negativity

5 years later it was accepted

A bit earlier it was pointed out that our decision to abandon Tassie was shortsighted and knee jerk (let alone disrespectful) .... That was negative.

5 years later it was accepted

Chris Pelchen was labelled as a devisive influence ... Negative. Was sacked

In a couple of years it will be accepted

I think hope is a dangerous thing, it can distort reality.... Small eg/ we hope Blake Acres develops, and after showing very little.... We tend to think he's going to be a gun. We jump on bandwagons, form popular opinions... IE/ 2012 Arryn Sipposs was going to be a gun, 2 years later he was hopeless (he didn't change, just popular opinion)
We are like sheep... Following blindly and hoping for successes

But reality sets in and we are forced to change our opinion, but only when it becomes accepted popular opinion.

Negative nellies... Sometimes turn out to be correct in there views... Not sure it's vindicated though, others just accept and pretend they always were of that opinion.

If we could reverse the trade now I think most would. I would. We can't.

I was in favour of keeping pick 5. It's gone.

The club has made its choice and its bed. Of course we're all gonna hope it works out and proves a good deal, aren't we?

What else can we do?

[sasaint]

I think sometimes negativity and reality get confused.

In 2009 it was pointed out that our trading and drafting that year was appalling ... That was negativity

5 years later it was reality

In the same period it was pointed out that our development was being overlooked (Armitage in particular) ... That was negativity

5 years later it was accepted

A bit earlier it was pointed out that our decision to abandon Tassie was shortsighted and knee jerk (let alone disrespectful) .... That was negative.

5 years later it was accepted

Chris Pelchen was labelled as a devisive influence ... Negative. Was sacked

In a couple of years it will be accepted

I think hope is a dangerous thing, it can distort reality.... Small eg/ we hope Blake Acres develops, and after showing very little.... We tend to think he's going to be a gun. We jump on bandwagons, form popular opinions... IE/ 2012 Arryn Sipposs was going to be a gun, 2 years later he was hopeless (he didn't change, just popular opinion)
We are like sheep... Following blindly and hoping for successes

But reality sets in and we are forced to change our opinion, but only when it becomes accepted popular opinion.

Negative nellies... Sometimes turn out to be correct in there views... Not sure it's vindicated though, others just accept and pretend they always were of that opinion.

And your point being? I am with Loris on this. I hope to be proved wrong but atm I think Carlisle is a cancer being introduced into the club. Over the past few years the Saints have been building something great. I hope this is not that one bad apple.

[markp]

I think we can easily sack him if he stuffs up again, but we should give him the opportunity to be of value to us and make amends, after heavily redrafting his contract.

[whiskers3614]

I think we can easily sack him if he stuffs up again, but we should give him the opportunity to be of value to us and make amends, after heavily redrafting his contract.

Hope the re-drafted contract has more stringent behaviour clauses than apply normally.

[saintspremiers]

I think we can easily sack him if he stuffs up again, but we should give him the opportunity to be of value to us and make amends, after heavily redrafting his contract.

Hope the re-drafted contract has more stringent behaviour clauses than apply normally.

You would expect that he will be on the shortest leash of any player on our list.

[gringo]

I think sometimes negativity and reality get confused.

In 2009 it was pointed out that our trading and drafting that year was appalling ... That was negativity

5 years later it was reality

In the same period it was pointed out that our development was being overlooked (Armitage in particular) ... That was negativity

5 years later it was accepted

A bit earlier it was pointed out that our decision to abandon Tassie was shortsighted and knee jerk (let alone disrespectful) .... That was negative.

5 years later it was accepted

Chris Pelchen was labelled as a devisive influence ... Negative. Was sacked

In a couple of years it will be accepted

I think hope is a dangerous thing, it can distort reality.... Small eg/ we hope Blake Acres develops, and after showing very little.... We tend to think he's going to be a gun. We jump on bandwagons, form popular opinions... IE/ 2012 Arryn Sipposs was going to be a gun, 2 years later he was hopeless (he didn't change, just popular opinion)
We are like sheep... Following blindly and hoping for successes

But reality sets in and we are forced to change our opinion, but only when it becomes accepted popular opinion.

Negative nellies... Sometimes turn out to be correct in there views... Not sure it's vindicated though, others just accept and pretend they always were of that opinion.

There is some truth to this but there is also a tendency for some people to form a negative view point and only see the bad. If you can't enjoy the party because you are worrying about the clean up life gets pretty sad. We did a lot right to get to a few grand finals, people didn't really want to hear your dooms day predictions because it was stopping us enjoying what was one of the better times in our football existence. To say that the time at the top will end and that a footballer is unlikely to make it isn't a talent for prediction. I'm pretty sure only a small percentage make it past 50 games and the system is designed to pull the advantage away from the top teams so they don't park ether for years.

[ripplug66]

I think sometimes negativity and reality get confused.

In 2009 it was pointed out that our trading and drafting that year was appalling ... That was negativity

5 years later it was reality

In the same period it was pointed out that our development was being overlooked (Armitage in particular) ... That was negativity

5 years later it was accepted

A bit earlier it was pointed out that our decision to abandon Tassie was shortsighted and knee jerk (let alone disrespectful) .... That was negative.

5 years later it was accepted

Chris Pelchen was labelled as a devisive influence ... Negative. Was sacked

In a couple of years it will be accepted

I think hope is a dangerous thing, it can distort reality.... Small eg/ we hope Blake Acres develops, and after showing very little.... We tend to think he's going to be a gun. We jump on bandwagons, form popular opinions... IE/ 2012 Arryn Sipposs was going to be a gun, 2 years later he was hopeless (he didn't change, just popular opinion)
We are like sheep... Following blindly and hoping for successes

But reality sets in and we are forced to change our opinion, but only when it becomes accepted popular opinion.

Negative nellies... Sometimes turn out to be correct in there views... Not sure it's vindicated though, others just accept and pretend they always were of that opinion.

Just come out and say it BM. You want a pat on the back. I always wonder why people feel the need to point out when they think they are right. I actually don't even understand the point of the post and what it has to do with Carlisle. Seems more to do with BM.

[Wrote for Luck]

The incentive for Carlisle and manager to provide this information to St Kilda during the negotiations is to be conducting themselves in an honest manner, and to be dealing in good faith with St Kilda and anyone else effected by the deal.

There is no argument that the information withheld from St Kilda was information associated directly with the value of the player. If that was not the case the detail would not have been withheld.

The players association and Carlisle's manager have ultimately (ironically) done Carlisle a disservice in that his deal with St Kilda is in dispute and now may be worth less than what it may have been had they come clean prior to the deal being finalised. Certainly from Carlisle's perspective his commencement of work at St Kilda is now made considerably more difficult. How is that looking after the player?

Ask yourself the question realistically what can you see happening here? In my view:

Unlikely
* draft compensation
* player suspension
* player association overrule (sackings)
* manager loss of licence

Possible
* deal made null and void (and the deal between Sydney/Essendon/St Kilda undone)
* contract variations made to Carlisle's contract (reduced earning potential and more geared toward performance base) (by all accounts happening)
* manager fined and player association fined with monies going to St Kida for damages
* any costs incurred by St Kilda as a consequence of the new information are incurred by AFLPA, Carlisle, or Carlisle's manager (his fee)

The more I think about it the more I would say the possibility of the deal being undone is real. All relevant information prior to the deal being finalised was not brought to the table thus compromising the exchanges.

If it is true that Carlise is worth less, which would be evidenced by his consent to agree to reduce the value of his contract, and indeed his and his manager's actions in keeping the issue sequestered, it is true to say that Sydney and Essendon received unrealistic (or inflated) gains from the deal thus creating an imbalance only realised after the new information came to light.

The whole thing is flawed and due to the impetus of the deal being around Carlisle and Carlisle's value, it is in my view possibly easier to remedy by undoing rather than scrambling for offerings to be provided to St Kilda in order to address the imbalance.

I wouldn't be surprised if St Kilda were working toward this for this reason; we have stated we would not have done the deal had we known.

You could argue we would say that anyway in order to assist our case for compensation of some sort, however, I think this statement in itself is very strong in terms of St Kilda now distancing itself from Jake Carlisle directly.

[sunsaint]

Just a reminder that Jake is Richos wonder kid
And the list managers moved heaven and earth for two weeks to make this happen
The deal is never going to be rescinded ~ terms will be renegotiated but that's it

[ripplug66]

The incentive for Carlisle and manager to provide this information to St Kilda during the negotiations is to be conducting themselves in an honest manner, and to be dealing in good faith with St Kilda and anyone else effected by the deal.

There is no argument that the information withheld from St Kilda was information associated directly with the value of the player. If that was not the case the detail would not have been withheld.

The players association and Carlisle's manager have ultimately (ironically) done Carlisle a disservice in that his deal with St Kilda is in dispute and now may be worth less than what it may have been had they come clean prior to the deal being finalised. Certainly from Carlisle's perspective his commencement of work at St Kilda is now made considerably more difficult. How is that looking after the player?

Ask yourself the question realistically what can you see happening here? In my view:

Unlikely
* draft compensation
* player suspension
* player association overrule (sackings)
* manager loss of licence

Possible
* deal made null and void (and the deal between Sydney/Essendon/St Kilda undone)
* contract variations made to Carlisle's contract (reduced earning potential and more geared toward performance base) (by all accounts happening)
* manager fined and player association fined with monies going to St Kida for damages
* any costs incurred by St Kilda as a consequence of the new information are incurred by AFLPA, Carlisle, or Carlisle's manager (his fee)

The more I think about it the more I would say the possibility of the deal being undone is real. All relevant information prior to the deal being finalised was not brought to the table thus compromising the exchanges.

If it is true that Carlise is worth less, which would be evidenced by his consent to agree to reduce the value of his contract, and indeed his and his manager's actions in keeping the issue sequestered, it is true to say that Sydney and Essendon received unrealistic (or inflated) gains from the deal thus creating an imbalance only realised after the new information came to light.

The whole thing is flawed and due to the impetus of the deal being around Carlisle and Carlisle's value, it is in my view possibly easier to remedy by undoing rather than scrambling for offerings to be provided to St Kilda in order to address the imbalance.

I wouldn't be surprised if St Kilda were working toward this for this reason; we have stated we would not have done the deal had we known.

You could argue we would say that anyway in order to assist our case for compensation of some sort, however, I think this statement in itself is very strong in terms of St Kilda now distancing itself from Jake Carlisle directly.

The deal is done and dusted. There is no way the deal will be voided. Contract will be altered. Saints will not ask for damages from anyone. The manager may get a bit of stick but bugger all will happen. Not sure if there will be any extra costs but it will be that minor there will be no issue. The only thing that will really happen is a change to his contract. I'm not even sure that will mean the playing contract but more the promotional part. Not sure there will be much or any variation to make it more performance based.

All voiding the contract would do is leave us a player short and millions out of pocket.

[Wrote for Luck]

Who approves the deals? If the AFL then they may have the authority. Simply it may depend if there is an existing clause somewhere which deals with this type of thing and the other parties would have accepted this by signing the trade agreement. If not then it would be difficult. But if you are St Kilda, and you are as reported taking the matter very seriously, what are you looking for then? Bugger all? I doubt it.

The engagement of legal services would be worth a pretty penny to date not taking into account the CEO and all and sundry time spent on the matter. Damage to brand. And if you look at the playing group as an asset then the devaluation of the asset due to the drug and integrity revelations. Especially compared to how the asset may have been bolstered if Saints had of utilised pick five though admittedly difficult to quantify.

I don't think it would take too much of a brain to put together costings and potential loss of revenue/benefits. It's not just that Carlisle does not get paid for promotional activities, but Saints will lose out on any wider benefits expected to be realised from Carlisle's promotion of the club. That potential is now gone and ostensibly replaced with a bad apple and brand damage.

But the above is neither here nor there just a guess and feeling really. But one thing I would be more certain of is that bugger all happening is unlikely. I reckon there will be repercussions from this in terms of player-club dealings if not for the benefit of St Kilda, but introduced for improved fairer negotiations to protect clubs going forward in similar instances.

It's just too much of an investment from any party to think that a drug scandal and potential drug issue aired on prime time television wouldn't somehow be relevant to the negotiations. If it happened a year ago it would be relevant and impact the dealings. If it happened one week before the trade it would, and it is, relevant.

[sasaint]

The incentive for Carlisle and manager to provide this information to St Kilda during the negotiations is to be conducting themselves in an honest manner, and to be dealing in good faith with St Kilda and anyone else effected by the deal.

There is no argument that the information withheld from St Kilda was information associated directly with the value of the player. If that was not the case the detail would not have been withheld.

The players association and Carlisle's manager have ultimately (ironically) done Carlisle a disservice in that his deal with St Kilda is in dispute and now may be worth less than what it may have been had they come clean prior to the deal being finalised. Certainly from Carlisle's perspective his commencement of work at St Kilda is now made considerably more difficult. How is that looking after the player?

Ask yourself the question realistically what can you see happening here? In my view:

Unlikely
* draft compensation
* player suspension
* player association overrule (sackings)
* manager loss of licence

Possible
* deal made null and void (and the deal between Sydney/Essendon/St Kilda undone)
* contract variations made to Carlisle's contract (reduced earning potential and more geared toward performance base) (by all accounts happening)
* manager fined and player association fined with monies going to St Kida for damages
* any costs incurred by St Kilda as a consequence of the new information are incurred by AFLPA, Carlisle, or Carlisle's manager (his fee)

The more I think about it the more I would say the possibility of the deal being undone is real. All relevant information prior to the deal being finalised was not brought to the table thus compromising the exchanges.

If it is true that Carlise is worth less, which would be evidenced by his consent to agree to reduce the value of his contract, and indeed his and his manager's actions in keeping the issue sequestered, it is true to say that Sydney and Essendon received unrealistic (or inflated) gains from the deal thus creating an imbalance only realised after the new information came to light.

The whole thing is flawed and due to the impetus of the deal being around Carlisle and Carlisle's value, it is in my view possibly easier to remedy by undoing rather than scrambling for offerings to be provided to St Kilda in order to address the imbalance.

I wouldn't be surprised if St Kilda were working toward this for this reason; we have stated we would not have done the deal had we known.

You could argue we would say that anyway in order to assist our case for compensation of some sort, however, I think this statement in itself is very strong in terms of St Kilda now distancing itself from Jake Carlisle directly.

The deal is done and dusted. There is no way the deal will be voided. Contract will be altered. Saints will not ask for damages from anyone. The manager may get a bit of stick but bugger all will happen. Not sure if there will be any extra costs but it will be that minor there will be no issue. The only thing that will really happen is a change to his contract. I'm not even sure that will mean the playing contract but more the promotional part. Not sure there will be much or any variation to make it more performance based.

All voiding the contract would do is leave us a player short and millions out of pocket.

Having this contract voided in the courts would be a walk in the park given the circumstances. Heaps of precedent to use. The question is do the Saints want to toss Carlisle. Does the AFL want the publicity.I would assume there are a lot of phone calls happening to work this one out. I really hope that the Saints leverage this to the max. In this case we got hit by a truck crossing on the green light. If we end up paying the medical bills and don't find a good lawyer to get a payout more fool are we.

[markp]

I'd be amazed if what was done to us is completely legal.

And if it is, it shouldn't be.

[Bunk_Moreland]

I'd be amazed if what was done to us is completely legal.

And if it is, it shouldn't be.

Lots of stuff in the AFL would not stand up to the test in court.

The draft, trading etc are all restraint of trade.

Tested in court and it would fall on its arse.

[BackFromUSA]

If Essendon knew before the trade then the AFL should penalise them a draft pick for their devious behaviour and award us that draft pick.

That's not going to happen.

But either way - StKilda should have already applied for an additional draft pick as compensation from the AFL - fair value would be after our second draft pick which would guarantee us Rice.

Interestingly we have already made room on our playing list to accommodate an extra player.

Also with Carlisle - all his marketing money deleted from his contract and saved this year should be split evenly amongst the whole playing group to compensate our players for having to deal with this.

Next year the marketing money can be used to lure an additional quality player.

In addition Carlisle should be fined the maximum under AFL contracts and AFLPA rules - which I think is $20k.

This sum would ideally get donated to a drug rehab charity.

He should also volunteer for an AFL drug strike AND volunteer to work within some form of appropriste community work.

As for a player suspension - why should the club further suffer with a loss of a player for any period of time?

Let him play footy and earn back the respect of the whole club and footy world.

[ripplug66]

If Essendon knew before the trade then the AFL should penalise them a draft pick for their devious behaviour and award us that draft pick.

That's not going to happen.

But either way - StKilda should have already applied for an additional draft pick as compensation from the AFL - fair value would be after our second draft pick which would guarantee us Rice.

Interestingly we have already made room on our playing list to accommodate an extra player.

Also with Carlisle - all his marketing money deleted from his contract and saved this year should be split evenly amongst the whole playing group to compensate our players for having to deal with this.

Next year the marketing money can be used to lure an additional quality player.

In addition Carlisle should be fined the maximum under AFL contracts and AFLPA rules - which I think is $20k.

This sum would ideally get donated to a drug rehab charity.

He should also volunteer for an AFL drug strike AND volunteer to work within some form of appropriste community work.

As for a player suspension - why should the club further suffer with a loss of a player for any period of time?

Let him play footy and earn back the respect of the whole club and footy world.

They certainly shouldn't penalise them at all. Its up to clubs to find out all they can. And the fine is 5k. And an additional pick is laughable. Only people in fantasyland could think we could get that.

Happy to debate the logic in all that.

[Bunk_Moreland]

I would be absolutely gobsmacked if we got a compensation pick.

Bloody hell we got the player, we got pick 14, we got a drug scandal.

Thats not the fault of the other 17 clubs, and there is no evidence that Essendon knew anything about the video or if Carlisle was an illicit drug user.

Actually the club wouldn't know even if he had strikes against him. That was the thing about the old policy, the clubs didn't have a clue.

And dont think Carlisle is alone in this, he was just idiotic or too stoned to understand the repercussions of video himself and the honour and integrity of his "mates" to sell him out.

Nope we were unlucky and we will bend to the AFL and the AFL will continue to give us a leg up behind closed doors

[Eastern]

there is no evidence that Essendon knew anything about the video or if Carlisle was an illicit drug user.

??And if evidence was to emerge??????????????????????????????????????????????? !!

[The Fireman]

Can't wait to see you guys cheering him when he gets his first possession

[samuraisaint]

Obviously AR wants Jake and that makes any rescinding of contract remote. After the ACA fiasco though, it will be difficult in the short term for him to be able to visit schools, represent our sponsors in an official capacity, or do a lot of the things that players are normally required to do in the line of public relations promotion.
Being unable to carry out a major off field role of the job could mean some loss of earnings from his contract. Just how much is what is the issue here.
It also remains to be seen if the club, worried about health issues, makes his contract heavily performance-based. It may save the club a lot of money in the salary cap.
I think he will be a valuable player for the St. KFC and I want Jake to get the chance to redeem himself and be a 150 game player for the Saints. I'll certainly be one of those cheering him from the first practice match of 2016.

[samuraisaint]

Can't wait to see you guys cheering him when he gets his first possession

I'll definitely be one of those cheering him on. He hasn't hurt anyone else and hopefully he has learned a valuable life lesson. It may make him a lot more focused.

[The Fireman]

Can't wait to see you guys cheering him when he gets his first possession

I'll definitely be one of those cheering him on. He hasn't hurt anyone else and hopefully he has learned a valuable life lesson. It may make him a lot more focused.

Don't worry..and so will his detractors on here as well.

[Con Gorozidis]

In some ways the way it came out kind of worked in our favour. If it came out say next week then maybe the club would have had less bargaining power. As it came out just before trade period ended at least we had a little window in which to give Jake a good whack and change the contract terms to be less in his favour. Might have given us a chance to put in some new clauses about his behaviour.