He'll be booed out of the game. Especially with 37 on his back.Originally Posted by aardvark
He'll be booed out of the game. Especially with 37 on his back.
I have another comment, trying to stick to the topic of ET rather than the wider social issues: there is a risk that if we keep Elijah, he will be booed, potentially even by Swans fans. This would be a disastrous scenario for both the club and Elijah. So, the more I think about it, the more I think the club is going to have to do some explaining. I think it's reasonable to expect that Elijah will have to do a fair bit of media and talk about his use of violence, why it happened and what he's done to make sure it won't happen again. This wouldn't necessarily happen immediately but I think will need to happen before he takes the field again.
Another way of looking at the situation is that the delay by the club is not because we are thinking of keeping him but because we are waiting for the legal system to run its course before we use his crimes as a basis for tearing up his contract. I would have thought his plea of guilt would be enough but I can also see an argument for letting the court case come to its final conclusion before we respond formally. I hope the list managers have some clarity about the club's intentions, even if we don't.
I reserve my right to boo players who abuse women whether it be rape or domestic violence. It's unacceptable no matter how you spin it. If opposition supporters did the same I wouldn't criticise them. The club needs to think long and hard about going down this path.
Yes, my point exactly. It's not an easy decision to keep him. But nor is it one I would rule out offhand.
As I've said before, for me it really comes down to all the circumstances of what happened and his attitude now. There are scenarios where I could accept the club retaining him - but they will need to be carefully explained.
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others. -Douglas Adams, author (11 Mar 1952-2001)
BSPIRIT
as part of the process can we ask the partners and wives of our current players to vote ?
Everyone desrves a second chance if they have truly reformed. Yes, what he did is not acceptable but he has pleaded guilty and we need to await the law courts decision.
We are talking about an immature 18yo who probably desperately needs strong guidance to get his life on track and it may be that the football club is the best place for this to happen. He may turn out a model citizen after this.
The club and AFL will make a decision and we need to accept it whichever way it goes.
Let's not forget what Mick O'Loughlin was credibly accused of when he was a young bloke. And I'm his biggest fan.
I presume that's a rhetorical question. I will limit myself in what I say to the following, because I don't want to drag this thread off topic:
I accept that there may be a range of views people may hold around this issue. Personally, I'm not a hardliner. I'm not a guy who says "well, you've done a terrible thing therefore you must be a terrible person and that can never be changed". I think it's more valuable to seek to have all parties understand why the terrible thing was done. This is does not excuse doing terrible things and does not mean there should not be consequences for doing terrible things, but it is more valuable than just writing someone off, end of story. If you do that, not only are opportunities for all parties to learn lost, but also there is a greater risk of terrible actions being repeated (whether by the same person or others).
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others. -Douglas Adams, author (11 Mar 1952-2001)
Yes the Sydney Swans have some disgraceful supporters I am sad to hear. Yes he made a mistake and will pay a price but he was also a kid who was thrown into the spotlight and did not know how to handle the situation. As one supporter mentioned, Micky O was accused of something similar when he was young and now what a wonderful role model he turned out to be.
It wasn't Bspirit
I was intrigued given we are a club !
I think that we can still offer support and mentorship.....yet not to an employee of the club given the crime at hand. ET will need to hook in get a job for 12months, do community work and prove his willingness to truly value being a swan. Then if all signs point in the right direction we can look at next steps in 12months from now.
This crime changes many layers to this problem and solution for an employee.
I suspect there would be significant portion of player partners not wanting to socialise with ET and would certainly have a strong opinion on what the club should be doing or not doing re his continued employment
A club is very different in its dynamics vs typical employer scenarios
We have seen plenty of examples of physical or sexual assault by a sporting athlete destabilising the fabric of the playing group that he was part of......The BBQ test is the perfect example of polarising a playing group. Who wants to be at the bbqs going forward? Plenty will opt out and this we massively impact the player group and partners bond.
If we had one person who committed and was found guilty of physical abuse to their partner vs say 2 or 3 players at the club also found guilty would this change ur mind on rehabilitation? For the first, second or third player? Should they be treated differently?
Picture going to a BBQ with all the players and players partners for a social gathering....and there are 3 players that have committed and been found guilty of assault.
I honestly can NOT imagine one club in the world saying yes to 2 or 3 players on their sporting list that have been found guilty of physical assault to a female.
I suspect that because it is only one player that is being discussed that this has influenced possibilities of rehabilitation. 2 or 3 players changes how we look at exactly the same problem. Yet they have all committed the same crime haven't they?
If it was 2 or 3 players it makes us look at this scenario totally differently because it looks so much worse yet it is exactly the same charge and crime.
Im not comfortable that it is the employers role to be dealing with the crime in a rehabilitation role.
I am comfortable that leaders of our club be part of the solution as mentors.
I guess I would think because the club hasn't cut him from the list already they are waiting to see what the courts say
and/or they think they might give him another chance. It's not a regular employer/employee relationship. Most people
work for companies/organisations that are not in the public eye. I'm sure it's a very tricky situation for the club. Not
every person who commits a crime is evil personified. He probably has some good points at least some of the time.
Having said that, I would think if he does get the opportunity to resume his football career it is going to be very
challenging for him. He has to play well and deal with the unsavory aspects of his character all while facing of lot
of animosity from footy fans around the country. He might be better off trying to get himself together away from the
public eye.
If the club retains ET they must strip him of #37. Otherwise they will be faced with thousands of furious Swans supporters.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks