Jets risk A-League cred on eve of new season

well said. especially the part at the end about how the flip side of power is responsibility. that's a point not yet made in all this, I don't think.

I seem to remember Mr Tinkler fairly recently having pretty uncommon conflict in the racing industry. Familiar tone problem being then it was not getting the horse flesh he thought he was getting and now it's a human involved. He underwrites the Jets and he wears the loss last year, this, and next. He will lose much more than Jason's wage this year. If it turns out that he is to pay $2.6M for 3 years of rehab of one individual, and wear higher costs because of a lower funded playing squad, then that could be one ask too many. How deep are his pockets really? I support the notion that Jason be well looked after but full price may come at a higher price - Tinkler gone and whole club gone shortly afterwards. The league operates in a deficit world. Fully fair and just outcomes are more likely to be found where money can be found. If it wouldn't happen in premier league it's because their billionaires get better returns.

Possibly. But that's the main downside of private ownership - the fans have no say in what goes on in the club. Which is OK if the owner does the right thing by the club.....

Great analysis - btw a journos job! A lot of commenters here gave no heed to facts. Branko was not involved In contract or medical Ray Baartz is on record about That just recently and was all over Internet. No insurance is absurd - false economy - but that's down to owner/board Not manager! The timing is anti football and Evidence of Tinklers L plates - totally agree with that. With rights come responsibilities.

And that jack russell spells disaster and trouble. Having lots of money to buy a star team does not guarantee twinning titles. Because often the rich owner who knows nothing abut the sports,suddenly has been in the sport for 5 mintues and thinks he knows everything, when in reality is he is so naive. He will start only employing yes people, who privately think he or she is an idiot, will turn the club into a circus asking coaches left right centre, same changing players all the time, in panic design everytime the club is under pressure or goes through losing. Will buy the wrong players, will listen to the wrong players will be used and not know who to trust. An example at south sydney rugby league team. Adam macdougall said russell crow would start to come down to training and start giving coaching advice , he said it was laugable. Already i see trouble at Nathan Tinkler he is going to spend a lot of money make all sort sofa rash desicions about a sport he knows nothing about.

If you accept private ownership, you have to accept the authority that some private owners will stamp on their team. the bulk of them are in it to satisfy their own egos, and the way these guys run their business is their way or the highway. It's predictable that they will run any sporting club they own in the same way, even if they know nothing about the sport their club plays. In Tinkler's case, let's be honest, he was never going to make his mark on the sporting field as a participant.

Thought I'd put this link in to lighten up the mood a bit.

It was claimed in the media by JC that the injury to his knee that he has recently undergone surgery for was a NEW injury, as in not the same injury that he incurred at Gold Coast and was recovering from (and supposedly almost recovered to the point of returning to games). However, the insurance company weren't providing cover because they claimed it was a pre-existing condition. So it's not a case of Jason not being insured. I suspect the insurance company are trying to get out of their obligations by saying it's a pre-existing condition. This holds if it is indeed a NEW injury (that is, JC recovered from the original injury, then started feeling pinching in the knee as was reported in the media which was the new injury). You only have to look at Queensland with the floods and how the insurance companies aren't paying out in many cases because they're arguing over the definition of a flood. Insurance companies will go to great lengths to 'not pay out'. To say that the situation at the Jets took away the attention from the A-League season launch I don't think is entirely true. In some areas, namely Channel 7 news, neither topic received much if any attention at all. I watched channel 7 morning news the day after and there was no mention of either (focus was on post-GF for other codes). Perhaps it was covered in the evening news on the day (but they are big enough events to be deserving of a further mention the morning after IMO). Yes I am aware that channel 7 has never really treated 'soccer'/'football' properly.

Insurance companies will put a blanket exclusion on a pre-exisiting injury ie. any disorder of the knee that was injured would be excluded, even if it wasnt directly related to the original injury. They do this for exactly the possibility that has occurred in Culinas case. All looked good, prognosis ok, then a recurrence of the injury (or new injury that may have been contributed to by the old one). Applies to things like income protection insurance as well which is more in line with the coverage on his contract.

From my perspective, far from damaging the cred of the A-League, this event put the season front and centre of every Australian news outlet. The story has run at the top of the most popular stories list in the SMH and the Newcastle Herald for several days. The NH, by the way, has been resolutely in support of the Jets taking action, which suggests to me that there is far more to this than meets the eye. What this event and the ensuing publicity shows is that this is a serious league, with high stakes and serious money involved. It is part of the A-League growing up.

On the face of past reputation alone Jason has shown to be a dedicated professional footballer so there is no doubt that, given the opportunity to go through rehabilitation he would follow it to the letter, he will give every chance of getting back out on the pitch and performing. But looking at the media releases, what can be deduced about the situation? “The Club believes that it is highly unlikely that Jason will return to the A-League in the near future, following medical advise,” - Robbie Middleby. Post second op the medical prognosis may have tried to paint a realistic picture to the club that Jason may be lucky to make it out onto the field in the third season of contract, let alone the second. The catalyst to the attempt to 'set aside' Jason's contract though is the lack of insurance cover to what has been termed 'an existing injury'. So all the above and: “Jason’s injury could mean the Jets are without their marquee player for up to three seasons – not a good result for the club, supporters, sponsors and players,” - Nathan Tinkler. I believe is an owner without a fundamental grasp of club and player obligations trying to recover costs that insaurance will not. It will be interesting then to see what actions the club takes post National Dispute Resolution Chamber decision if it is in Jason's favour. I think Tinkler in some respects still has his L-plates on as an owner of a professional club, but what is of further concern is the following: “The decision to terminate the contracts was made after a long deliberation by the Newcastle Jets’ Advisory Board.” - Robbie Middleby. A fly on the wall at that meeting might reveal the discussions that went on there: the board has ex-players, some of them younger than Ray Baartz, so if they are advising the club on football matters, would they not have advised that this move to void a players contract was un-professional or un-ethical? Perhaps as mentioned they have reasons that will come out in the wash, but also in question is whether the board made that decision on their own, or were told by the owner that is what the decision was going to be and to endorse it. Either way, Branko's meeting with Tinkler and Palmer in Sydney on Tuesday perhaps was to inform him of the club's decision. Maybe Branko forgot which hat he was wearing (coach employed by the Jets or father) or Tinkler and Palmer couldn't tell from the response they got (you can't do that to a player under contract) which one they were seeing but from http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/newcastlejets/news-display/Newcastle-Jets-Statement/41473 we have: 'Given the position the Club has taken on Jason Culina's contract, the position of the coach has become untenable.' - would suggest perhaps that later bracket with a pinch of doubt of the 'father' thrown in. Money is on the player getting the favourable result but what then? Rehabilitation and turning out for a club that tried to toss you out with the curb-side bulk waste pickup? More likely negotiating a release of contract. Time will tell. Time as well is what the Jets need to ensure that this isn't their new modus operandi for players and staff as they feel their way through what is for some a steep learning curve and to build their reputation to attract quality staff and players. Reputation does count as a club as lines like this: “... I am confident in the character of the Jets’ players and staff who will quickly put this matter behind them and enjoy a great season,” - Nathan Tinkler. - can only work once, but not be the reality behind the doors of a club.

@ Lucan Of course you can speak about issues without knowing the facts. To be honest, it seems to be the norm in the 21st century to offer an opinion despite being totally ignorant of the underlying facts.

Chances are we will never know all the facts of this issue/case. Does this mean we should never speak of it, or it should never be reported on?

This is headed to the courts for sure and does need to be discussed .... there are some real issues here and one side is going to come out looking poor... Either Jason & Branko tricked the Jets although Ray Bartz has said not... or Tinkler people did not do their jobs well and cost him a heap of coin... but either Jason has on purpose signed when he knew he could not play or Tinkler is a bully who when things go wrong just fires people...

er... no. Without facts we have uninformed and random speculation. Facts allow us to have intelligent & informed speculation - that's the basis for the whole Legal System in societies that are governed by the Rule of Law. Everyday, in every court, facts are presented and then each party will speculate on what are the ramifications to flow from these agreed facts and, in most cases, each party will hold extremely opposing views of the same facts.

but also - slightly perversely - this sort of controversy is good for the league in the week leading up to kick-off. news bulletins are talking about football and the A-League. more free promo. it helps overcome one of the complaints among the public in past years that people just don't know the HAL is starting. the HAL is currently, not quite front and centre, but much closer to that than ever, and all on a minimal marketing spend by the FFA. so thankyou nathan for your enthusiastic contribution, kind of...

this is a good point, and I think the issue as well is that surely the onus is on the club to perform a medical assessment to determine whether or not the player is going to be fit to perform their duties on the pitch. and it seems that was indeed done by the club. I would expect not only full compensation for the culina's contracts out of tinkler's pockets, but that they also may have grounds for pursuing further damages relating basically to slander, defamation of character etc. tinkler will want to hope that he can prove the culina's have done something wrong here.

But if we had all the facts there'd be no need to speculate because well we'd have all the facts!

"while it might be unpalatable to discuss such a negative and challenging topic on the eve of the most highly anticipated A-League season to date, to not do so would be a disservice to everyone involved in Australian football" Well said. We can't allow for things to be swept under the rug to save face. People bemoaned the old regime for that sort of behaviour.

I tend to agree with Davidde that the onus lies with the Jets to show that Branko and/or Jason have actively mislead the club about the extent of the injury.