Agree - This probably happens in most large workplaces - Humans will be humans.
I am interested in whether the AFL or other large work places have policies in place to cover these scenarios - The Hardwick situation with the marketing person seemed to tick all the boxes.
Was it a sordid tryst though? If not, it’s not news.
Simpkiss and Lethlean were pinged for extra maritals with single AFL employees.
Demetriou affair was in order because they were both single at the time.
Some companies require senior exec disclosure to Directors of in house affairs.
So he should have paid the 50 against the Hawks and made you furious again?
Or not pay the 50, but only if it’s because of commonsense… if it’s a rule and they pay it you’ll be furious too?
Think you will find one of the women who had the affair with Simpkiss or Lethlean was partnered at the time.
I don’t think that matters. It’s not a moral issue but one of integrity. Having a relationship with someone who reports to you directly or who you have influence over re KPIs, promotion or pay grade is off limits in any corporate setting.
At the very base level, sexual relationships with those you directly manage need to be disclosed, or cease. Thats the bare minimum.
Lol.
He’s 35 and a manager for six months, she’s 45 and been working there for 25 years, they’re both married.
They go skipping hand in hand to HR to inform them of their relationship because that’s going to happen.
HR should be first to know, and everyone knows they have everyone’s backs.
Lol of course that’s never going to happen, which is why it’s an integrity issue and should be managed as such.
North Melbourne will overtake St Kilda as the AFL’s most heavily funded Victorian club this year in the AFL’s latest distribution of variable funding to the 18 clubs.
And the same four power clubs - Collingwood, Richmond, West Coast and Hawthorn - again will not receive any additional dollars this year, besides the base distribution of between $10.5 million to $11m.
Expansion teams Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney will remain well ahead of the 16 other clubs on the funding ladder, receiving around $25m each in 2023, or more than $14m in extra funding.
As the AFL finalises the variable funding for 2023 - most, if not all, clubs have been told what they will receive this year - The Age can also reveal the following details about the 18 clubs from senior competition sources:
Essendon will be the fifth least-funded club, gaining less than $1m in additional funding, while their great rival Carlton is expected to receive $1m to $2m extra, but the Blues are viewed by the AFL as a club that will not need additional support for much longer given their vast support and on-field improvement.
Melbourne will receive fractionally more in variable funding than the Western Bulldogs. Both clubs have greatly improved their financial position over recent years, and are now falling into the same funding bracket as Port Adelaide and the Sydney Swans of close to an additional $5m.
2022 premiers and regional powerhouse Geelong will receive between $1m and $2m in addition to the base funding, placing the Cats in the same funding group as Adelaide, Fremantle and Carlton, but ahead of Hawthorn, Collingwood and Richmond on the funding table.
Hawthorn remains in the gang of four clubs - as it has been since 2020 - that gain no additional funding, despite a lean period on the field and long-term rebuild with a very young list and the prospect of losing their millions from a second base in Tasmania if/when a Tassie team gains entry to the AFL (from 2027 most likely). The Hawks have an outstanding balance sheet, however, having sold their pokies assets for more than $40m, with freeholds at Waverley and their next home at Dingley.
All told, nine clubs, or half of the competition, have been granted comparatively little extra funding this year and are viewed as being financially robust. They are, unsurprisingly, the six strongest Victorian clubs (Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn, Essendon, Carlton and Geelong) plus the two the Perth clubs and the Adelaide Crows.
So for all the ■■■■■■■ and moaning about GC being a drain on the comp, financially they’re only seen as $7M pa worse off - as a non competitive, non finals team - than top 4 Brisbane?
Bottom 4 GWS only $9M worse off than beaten grand finalist Sydney.
Interesting.
You could translate that to be that is their best case future outcome as these non football state teams continue to prove they’ll never not be basket cases
Propose merge or relocate one of Norf/Saints, remove one of GWS/GC so enough to bring in Tas, leaves tv deal untouched and even enough leftover to boost the executive bonuses too (which is whats actually needed to get anything over the corrupt AwFl line)
So 4 field umpires it is for AFL matches. Dan Richardson confirms the change.
Yay! Another official that I can insinuate that their mother was a fly.
And still you’ll umpires 50m further away overriding decisions
They didn’t have enough ability when we had 3 nownyour going to add another who’s even less experienced skilled
4 differing ideas adjudicating the 1 game
May as well get the goal umpires ina s well as and score electronically
I wonder if some of the better umpires will double up each round. The idea is partly to make umpires run less and stay at the top level for longer.
Decided on it in November and release it a couple of weeks before the season starts, bizarre
Clarko must have stuffed up again
you could cut their distance in half by stopping the non officiating ump making bad calls from 100m away
