Nathan MottonHolland: a case of sour grapes
April 6th 2008 08:51
Is Ben Holland just another footballer who refuses to take responsibility for stupid mistakes, or is he in the words of his manager, a player spurned?
This scribe can't help but see it as the former.
Having sued his former president Clinton Casey for $530,000 over what he claims are unpaid payments, Hollands case stands out as a tough one to prove.
The player says he was offered incentives on top of an $800,000 three-year contract, which included a range of business and investment opportunities, offered to him at a meeting at Crown casino in 2001.
Former Richmond coach Danny Frawley admitted yesterday that several Tigers have struck property deals with Casey, but denied the club of any breaches of the salary cap.
Further, Holland was quoted in The Australian yesterday whining: "Other players got parcels of land at Sandhurst. I wanted to get involved but it never eventuated. Nothing ever happened."
As far as this scribe understands, plenty of potential buyers (including Richmond players) rolled up and purchased accordingly. Is Holland really so naive that he expected some sort of preferential treatment, like a personal invitation from Casey? Why was Holland not there?
And as for the fact that the players promised podiatry opportunities amounted to nothing, does not seem to be Casey's fault. Holland worked briefly at one of Casey's aged-care facilities, but more than one member of the media believes this was not something he was keen to continue, given his payments were so little.
The player also said in The Australian he felt cheated by Casey's promises to remain at the club.
"People make promises and representations. I know for a fact I am not the only one out there that it has happened to. I have had calls from other players. Clubs have to be more accountable for what they say to entice players to stay," Holland said.
Rubbish.
What Holland seems to be forgetting is that just because you're an AFL player, doesn't necessarily mean you will succeed in anything business or financial.
Investments are calculated risks, not all of which will come off. AFL players are not immune to these risks.
Speaking on radio 3AW today Richmond president Gary March, who was on the board at the time of the alleged events, believes that Holland never took on business opportunities afforded to him, unlike other players.
It seemingly sounds like a pretty sad case of sour grapes from a man whose career never really amounted to much.
But in the unlikely event that anything untoward is found to have been carried out by the Richmond football club, blame should not be leveled at Holland.
That is, if anything is found.
These matters were raised with then AFL football operations manager Andrew Demetriou in 2004, by Holland and Mark Brayshaw, then Richmond chief executive, and were not deemed to be in any breach of the salary cap.
Should it escape sanction, Richmond should learn from this latest saga.
And perhaps Holland should learn to accept his misguided decisions in the past, and maybe move on.
This scribe can't help but see it as the former.
Having sued his former president Clinton Casey for $530,000 over what he claims are unpaid payments, Hollands case stands out as a tough one to prove.
The player says he was offered incentives on top of an $800,000 three-year contract, which included a range of business and investment opportunities, offered to him at a meeting at Crown casino in 2001.
Former Richmond coach Danny Frawley admitted yesterday that several Tigers have struck property deals with Casey, but denied the club of any breaches of the salary cap.
As far as this scribe understands, plenty of potential buyers (including Richmond players) rolled up and purchased accordingly. Is Holland really so naive that he expected some sort of preferential treatment, like a personal invitation from Casey? Why was Holland not there?
And as for the fact that the players promised podiatry opportunities amounted to nothing, does not seem to be Casey's fault. Holland worked briefly at one of Casey's aged-care facilities, but more than one member of the media believes this was not something he was keen to continue, given his payments were so little.
The player also said in The Australian he felt cheated by Casey's promises to remain at the club.
"People make promises and representations. I know for a fact I am not the only one out there that it has happened to. I have had calls from other players. Clubs have to be more accountable for what they say to entice players to stay," Holland said.
What Holland seems to be forgetting is that just because you're an AFL player, doesn't necessarily mean you will succeed in anything business or financial.
Investments are calculated risks, not all of which will come off. AFL players are not immune to these risks.
Speaking on radio 3AW today Richmond president Gary March, who was on the board at the time of the alleged events, believes that Holland never took on business opportunities afforded to him, unlike other players.
It seemingly sounds like a pretty sad case of sour grapes from a man whose career never really amounted to much.
But in the unlikely event that anything untoward is found to have been carried out by the Richmond football club, blame should not be leveled at Holland.
That is, if anything is found.
These matters were raised with then AFL football operations manager Andrew Demetriou in 2004, by Holland and Mark Brayshaw, then Richmond chief executive, and were not deemed to be in any breach of the salary cap.
Should it escape sanction, Richmond should learn from this latest saga.
And perhaps Holland should learn to accept his misguided decisions in the past, and maybe move on.
| 44 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
