Collingwood has suspended Alan Didak and Heath Shaw for the remainder of the 2008 season, including finals, for lying about a drink-drive accident.
Didak has also been fined $5000 while Shaw's $10,000 fine remains in place.
The suspension includes the remaining four games of the home and away season and potential finals matches.
Shaw's brother Rhyce has also been suspended for two matches and fined for $5,000 for excessive drinking on Sunday night.
Collingwood considered sacking him when he was linked the that underworld bloke. When you add this to that, plus his other indescretions and the fact he straight up lied about the whole thing, I don't see why Collingwood would want to keep him.
The trouble is, when you read the headline "Joe Bloggs caught drink driving" you think, oh some random dickhead. When you read "Alan Didak stuffs up again" you think of Collingwood.
I'm not saying he should be sacked on the first offence, but this is clearly not the first offence.
But Didak has still not done anything illegal. He got unlucky, because he is quite an idiot, when he got involved with the underworld character...he should have known better, but still, he did nothing illegal.
Here in the latest incident he again proved his stupidity in not stopping Heath from driving drunk then being part of an attempted cover-up of the facts which was never going to be successful, given the large number of witnesses to the event.
His only crime is one of stupidity, there is no reason for him to be sacked.
He was in a car with the underworld bloke when gun shots were fired from that car. He not only didn't tell police, he didn't tell Collingwood straight away either and then he also failed to co-operate properlyBut Didak has still not done anything illegal. He got unlucky, because he is quite an idiot, when he got involved with the underworld character...he should have known better, but still, he did nothing illegal.
I would dare say if he lied to Collingwood, he also would have lied to the Police.Here in the latest incident he again proved his stupidity in not stopping Heath from driving drunk then being part of an attempted cover-up of the facts which was never going to be successful, given the large number of witnesses to the event.
If I lied to my employer more than once and did not co-operate with their investigations, I would fully expect to be sacked.His only crime is one of stupidity, there is no reason for him to be sacked.
But Didak has still not done anything illegal. He got unlucky, because he is quite an idiot, when he got involved with the underworld character...he should have known better, but still, he did nothing illegal.
Here in the latest incident he again proved his stupidity in not stopping Heath from driving drunk then being part of an attempted cover-up of the facts which was never going to be successful, given the large number of witnesses to the event.
His only crime is one of stupidity, there is no reason for him to be sacked.
He lied to police about not being in the car.... Is that not illegal!?!?!?
was'nt in didak's contract give give up the grog after his last stupid act?was'nt he drinking with them at the polo club?
I still see nothing responded to my post as to why he should be sacked...Again, if you can;t trust an employee to do the right thing and to tell you the truth, what else would you do?
So, you are saying that every employee who has ever lied to their employer in any capacity with respect to their life outside of their job should be instantly sacked? You must also want Heath to be sacked as well. Lets bring that rule in...Australia's unemployment rate would hit 95% overnight.
I don't think lying to your employer is a good thing, and I still can't work out why in God's name these boys decided to lie in this instance, the only logical reason is that they are complete idiots.
List all of the things that Didak has done wrong in his time at Collingwood, look at them objectively and then decide if he should be sacked. Then transpose a set of the same wrong doings to the best player at your own club and decide if they should be sacked.
Definately not saying everyone, but then this is not an everyday workplace. This workplace is known and followed not only by the thousands of people that are paying members, but by the entire country. If someone jeopodises the company name over and over again, and then when they know they are in breach of contract, openly and blatently lie to try and hide it, then it's time to change it from being stupidity to inability to follow rules and maybe more importantly, having no respect those you are working for. Shaw should get a warning, which he did, as it was a first offence and I am willing to bet he only lied because Didak gave him an incentive. This is why they lied. Not because they are idiots (which they obviously are) but because they knew of the other concequences and what Didak would have been told behind closed doors last time he acted up. That's a calculated plot behind your employers back.
Here's the other point though that Collingwood have to look at. They only got caught this time because Shaw had an accident. For all they know Didak is out on the piss every weekend and simply has not told them and will not tell them and simply has not been caught because no accident occured. And how do they know he's not lying again when he says he hasn't? He's just lied to their faces now.
He should be sacked because he is bringing Collingwood's name, culture and reputation into disrepute and they simply cannot be assured it won't happen again.
Ah, so he is in breach of contract, if so, then THAT is a reason to sack. But if that was actually the case, we would know about it. Since he signed his new contract without the clauses that would become his current set of rules to play by...so no breach of contract. And assuming the circumstances of why the lies have occurred is pointless, as is wondering if other, unknown acts have taken or will take place in the future, seems to me that you are making biased judgments.
In the end, what we think on this matter is irrelevant, we will see what happens at years end, if he is "sacked" (ie. traded) from the club. It is Collingwood's decision to make over the harm they judge that his actions have caused the club.
His new contract starts next year. If they want to sack him, they have the power to do it this year while his old contract is still in place. So if his "sacked" he is sacked...if he is "traded" he is traded. If they try and trade him they'll have to come to an agreement with Didak as to where he wants to go, what the other club will pay him etc, all for probably very little in return. Sacking him will be the greatest punishment as it tears up any chance of him commanding the same kind of dollars from another club, and Collingwood can rid themself of the burden of dealing with someone who is very clearly a certified moron.
Footy players face different scrutiny from employers than the common man. Simple. No use arguing with a northern suburb Pies supporter LOL
Didak has brought his club into disrepute on many occasions and unlike us when a footballer goes home he still has responsiblities to his club and teamate and getting smashed like they did is poor form and shows contempt for his club and teamates.
The same rules can't apply as we dont bring in millions in sponsors and paid up members based on our work performance and public image.
Sack em I say and then the Pies can whinge all they want when they miss out on finals like they would of anyway LOL
Here is your out Doc LOL
Ah, so he is in breach of contract, if so, then THAT is a reason to sack. But if that was actually the case, we would know about it. Since he signed his new contract without the clauses that would become his current set of rules to play by...so no breach of contract. And assuming the circumstances of why the lies have occurred is pointless, as is wondering if other, unknown acts have taken or will take place in the future, seems to me that you are making biased judgments.
In the end, what we think on this matter is irrelevant, we will see what happens at years end, if he is "sacked" (ie. traded) from the club. It is Collingwood's decision to make over the harm they judge that his actions have caused the club.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?