PA`s Office (Danger - Do Not Enter)

[vic_orthdox]

Personally, the PA Rep's role in this needed to be more public. We needed to see what action he took, remembering that his job should be to solely get the best possible result for the players involved, not necessarily what he thinks should be the result. Considering Towns is representing us all, we should know the views being taken to the table.

Admittedly, the waters are a bit murky because it's a player vs player issue, however once it was decided that action was to be taken, hopefully the position was taken of trying to quash the decision to the fewest weeks possible.

Also, I think action by the PA needs to be taken about the Dunn issue. Surely he's got a foot to stand on "legally", where something that most players took as a "registration of intent/interest" suddenly became a binding contract.

 

[Matteh]

Also, I think action by the PA needs to be taken about the Dunn issue. Surely he's got a foot to stand on "legally", where something that most players took as a "registration of intent/interest" suddenly became a binding contract.

Don't need to fuss too much about the Dunn situation as Green don't want him anyway, but some sort of clearing up needs to be done regarding how the declarations of interest are viewed.

 

[age_master]

remembering that his job should be to solely get the best possible result for the players involved, not necessarily what he thinks should be the result.

Wouldn't his job be to get the best possible outcome for all the players of the league as a whole, not just the individuals involved in various incidents.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Also, I think action by the PA needs to be taken about the Dunn issue. Surely he's got a foot to stand on "legally", where something that most players took as a "registration of intent/interest" suddenly became a binding contract.

He responded to a request to return for Blue then responded to a request to play for Green. Basically, he took the same action with both clubs, but did it with Blue first. Aside from that, the agreement he made was totally unbeknownst to the captain, Andrew Garven.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Wouldn't his job be to get the best possible outcome for all the players of the league as a whole, not just the individuals involved in various incidents.

When he's representing the league, yes.

See, all I'm asking for is more transparency in the role of the PA Rep.

He responded to a request to return for Blue then responded to a request to play for Green. Basically, he took the same action with both clubs, but did it with Blue first. Aside from that, the agreement he made was totally unbeknownst to the captain, Andrew Garven.

See, when the similar thing was started at Colts, I know I just read it as a registration of interest, and what you "thought" was going to happen. TBH, if Dunn had've been playing for anyone other than Blue, I'd guess he'd be at Green now.

 

[age_master]

Shouldn't the PA rep always be representing the majority of the players?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Shouldn't the PA rep always be representing the majority of the players?

In a sense, but the position is designed to represent the interests of the players as opposed to the interests of the CWBCC. When there's a dispute between an individual player and the board for instance, the role of the PA rep would be to represent the player. A dispute between players would obviously be considered on the merits of the situation, with the aim of reaching an acceptable compromise.

 

[Loony BoB]

It is my understanding that I am in no way obligated to represent any individual unless it is seen to be in the larger interests of the PA (the whole of the players). If the majority of players agree with the CWBCC's actions towards an individual, then arguing for the individual would be arguing against the position of the PA, which is not something I will do.

Having said that, if I find the player in question to be taking the correct actions and feel that the PA would be happy with a compromise, I will obviously look to take that option.

It is notable that players have raised to me their approval of the bans and, prior to them being brought about, players were requesting I move for their behavious to be investigated.

There does, however, seem to be a definite split in the opinions between players on this one and I will look to seek a position that can accurately represent the PA, some sort of a compromised opinion.

From what I understand, everyone (or the vast majority) agrees that the bans should have been placed however there are questions over the length by some, although not all. I have discussed this already with some of you on MSN and via email, of course, and welcome others to bug me so when I get home, I can contact you as well.

I have been contacted by one of the individuals and will look to make a statement once I have a better opinion of the majority of players. I seriously encourage people to continue to contact me.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I won't bother with the email as I've already made my views clear in public, and I'd rather this was conducted publically and transparently anyway. The bans are completely acceptable, but the punishments are entirely out of line with the established norm, and clearly far too long. Something in the area of 5-10 games would be a serious punishment that was longer than anything the CWBCC has handed out for abuse in the past, but not so unreasonable.

 

[Loony BoB]

Please note this thread.