^^^
I should clarify that when I say "if I had my way" I more precisely mean something like "in a better world, according to what I regard as better". I don't think anyone (certainly not Bevo, if it was indeed Bevo who expressed those sentiments) was contemplating enforcing a ban or restriction, as they do with alcohol. But now that I think of it, there are bans on phone use, etc. around game time because of gambling & match fixing. A club could, with the support of its (players') leadership group, trial a social media blackout for the whole of game day and the night before...
While it's not for the club and supporters to decide for the players what to do, they can perhaps encourage them as much as possible to avoid such hazards.
There are many people in the public spotlight who have official webpages, twitter accounts, etc., whose posts, tweets, etc. are entirely made up by people they employ. Their 'real' accounts are set to be entirely private, to be shared with their friends and family only.
Sack Pendles (and De Goey!)
Moderator: bbmods
"Puppets" is the word you want, David. You believe that those in the player leadership group are puppets. But aren't they largely determined by the players' votes, these days? I think so, although it's unclear how much say the "authoritarian forces" have in deciding whether to overrule the players' wishes as expressed by their votes.
-
thesoretoothsayer
- Posts: 1109
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:15 am
- Been liked: 23 times
Assuming for the moment that's true, I guess how I feel about it depends on what exactly "in the interest of the club as a business" means. Players already can be charged by the AFL with "bringing the game into disrepute". Presumably, there are similar clauses in players' contracts with their clubs.
