Dane goes to work everyday. His work is physically demanding and sometimes dangerous. The risk of injury is high.
Longevity in his line of work is relatively short. Survive in his work place for five years and you have done well. Survive for ten years and you start to become an exception. Time off is rare.
After work, Dane likes to relax, go out with mates, maybe have a few beers. Nothing too extreme. He is sometimes seen out after dark, but he still performs to his usual high standard when at work.
In fact he is integral to the successful operation of his workplace. He has even received awards acknowledging the quality of his work.
But things start to go wrong for Dane. Rumours begin to circulate about his after work activities. Apparently his behaviour is unbecoming for someone in his position.
There is talk of drug taking. There is talk of a less than committed attitude to his place of work. His reputation is slighted. Some would even call it slander.
So Dane decides to clear his name. He talks to a prominent member of his community, someone who will be able to ensure his message gets out. He wants the opportunity to dispel some of the myths that have begun to build up around him. In short he wants to restore his standing and ensure family and friends (and those at his work place) that he hasn’t been doing anything untoward.
It is a commendable approach and one that his work place should support. Right?
Of course it should, unless the Dane we are talking about is Dane Swan and the employer is the Collingwood Football Club. Then things turn nasty.
Collingwood’s attitude to Swan’s interview on The Footy Show last Thursday night is hard to fathom. Swan did not speak poorly of the footy club. He did not give away any club secrets or criticise the management or playing group. The interview predominately dealt with personal issues.
Surely he is allowed to speak freely about his life and defend himself against scurrilous rumours and innuendo?
To make the matter even more laughable, it was not the content of the interview that Collingwood objected to, it was the fact that permission to do the interview in the first place was not sought by Swan or his manager, Liam Pickering.
This petty approach reeks of Collingwood and its president Eddie McGuire trying to play God and of the club being arrogant enough to think that they can control all aspects of a player’s life, whether it relates to the club or not.
They are all hot under the collar about protocol not being followed. Swan wants to distance himself from rumours of drug taking and all Collingwood are worried about is protocol!
Perhaps if they had been more pro-active when these rumours first came about, the situation may not have escalated into the debacle that it has become.
The war of words that followed between Swan’s manager Liam Pickering and the Collingwood hierarchy is laughable.
Mcguire, CEO Gary Pert and coach Nathan Buckley all chimed in with the company line. Swan and Pickering knew the rules and they broke them. The interview needed club approval, they went ahead without it, and now they will be punished.
Punished for trying to set the record straight on his off field activities. What a joke.
It is time for McGuire and the Collingwood power brokers to take a step back and try and view the situation with some objectiveness.
What crime has Swan really committed? None. Was their precious football club harmed? Not at all.
Did anyone die? No. He received payment for the interview, sure, but so what?
Any fallout from the interview has been caused by the club itself, not Swan. It is the stubborn, dictatorial stance taken by the club that has seen this blow out into a discussion piece that was barely worthy of a mention in the first place.
Had they supported Swan and not got all uppity about precocious protocols, there would have been no issue.
The interview would have aired on Thursday night, been reported in the papers the next morning, and have been quickly forgotten as the next round of the pre-season competition got under way.
The war of words between the two parties wouldn’t have eventuated and the footy club wouldn’t have come away looking the control freak that it now does. In this case they have damaged their own brand, while fuelling further rumours about Swan’s future at the club.
Footballers are paid good money to represent their clubs at the highest level. There is an expectation that players will work hard on the field and present themselves favourably off it. This is a fair expectation.
What isn’t fair though is a football club trying to control a player’s life from the moment he wakes up to the moment he goes to sleep. Players should be allowed to talk freely of their lives, even their football clubs, without the risk of sanction.
When it is all said and done, football at the elite level is a job. It provides employment for several hundred men each year and for the best of them it pays very well.
Most of us in the workforce can talk freely about our jobs. We most definitely can talk freely about our own lives. What makes a football club think that it is any different to any other employer? What right do they have to gag players?
It is football, for crying out loud, not a matter of national security.
Had Swan come out and criticised the club, then that would have shown a lack of professionalism, but he didn’t. He simply addressed some issues that had been simmering in the background for way too long.
He spoke well, giving us an insight into what makes him tick and how he thinks.
He was totally professional in his approach and probably garnered a few extra fans because of it. And yet he was punished.
It is time that football clubs, and the Collingwood Football Club in particular, started treating their players like adults.
Dane Swan has been a magnificent servant of the club and deserves to be treated with respect.
Brendan
Guest
This time next week Sean you may not be allowed to write an article such as this assuming Conroy's legislation gets up.I find the smear on Swan's reputation astonishing(incidentially i support Geelong) particularly given he is a brownlow medallist.Eddie should have kept his beef in house rather than adding another edge to this tale.Off-field issues are starting to become overplayed and if Swan is pulling the wool over our eyes surely he will be caught by the drug testers.Sadly in todays society an accusation is seen as a justification to harass and badger people.
Richard
Roar Guru
Good on you Sean. Go the 'Pies!
Sean Lee
Expert
I've enjoyed our discussion Richard. That's what I love about this forum. We all have our opinions and we have the opportunity to explain/defend/debate our points of view. Thanks for your contribution.
MARK
Guest
This is quite a remarkable debate. There must be some possibility that the rumours of poor behaviour are defaming a character and therefore perhaps illegal if judged as untrue in the light of no actual evidence. Taking any legal action against those who start the rumours is also going to be difficult. For example against the media who print or broadcast this information. Dane is therefore in a difficult position, Do i defend myself or not? Knowing most footballers on field i know what the answer to that one is!!! Personally i would also feel pretty bad if this were to happen to me personally. From a human rights point of view each individual should have freedom of speech. From an organisational point of view there are rules and for each breach there is usually first some sort of investigation and in all fairness a decision made considering the circumstances. I think if i had worked for an employer for this period of time with a proven track record it would be very unfair. If i compare this to the other cases listed above its completely different and actually the offence is in comparison hardly an offence at all. Just a bloke sticking up for himself, but not with his fists!!!
Richard
Roar Guru
And re your last point, well I agree, consistency is really important. Lack of consistency generates contempt. And rightly so.
Richard
Roar Guru
The rules are really quite simple. Follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, try to get them changed. If you can't get them changed, follow the rules. Or leave. Simple as that. If you ignore the rules, suffer the consequences and don't expect any sympathy. Not a hard concept to grasp I would have thought, although clearly there are some who don't get it. Don't understand why it's so hard to understand. Its how we manage to have a society instead of chaos. Not sure what Collingwood's rules are if their employee Dane Swan were to go on TV for a paid interview about his sibling. Hopefully Dane does, in case it ever arises.
Richard
Roar Guru
No. Conclusive evidence that God barracks for Collingwood. Look it up in The Bible. It's there in Black and White. ;)
Richard
Roar Guru
Sean Lee
Expert
You are probably right, but I think we sometimes over estimate the potential damage that might occur. The fans seem to stay loyal. Collingwood fans didn't jump ship when Didak and co. occasionally found themselves in hot water. Essendon fans haven't jumped ship yet and probaby won't. Melbourne Storm also experienced a surge from their members after their salary cap ordeals. The only thing that really sees crowds drop off is when a team is constantly losing. Other than that they keep turning up in droves!
Sean Lee
Expert
You make some excellent points Richard and I do agree with you more than you probably think. Everyone has to follow the rules, but at what point do the rules become too stringent? What about this scenario. Let's pretend that Dane Swan has a sibling that excells in another sport, let's say an Olympic sport. His sibling wins a gold medal. The media seek out Dane and run an interview based around the premise of what it is like to be the brother of an Olympic gold medallist. Absolutely nothing to do with Collingwood. Would he still need to seek permission from the club to do the interview? And if he didn't seek approval would he still be slapped with a substancial fine? Or would Eddie, on this occasion, see it as good pubilicity for the Pies and let it pass. I know this is all fantasy but I would love to see how it would play out.
Richard
Roar Guru
Actually I agree that Eddie showed disrespect for Melbourne in that case and, although I hate to say it, I don't think that reflected well on him at all. Much as I love Eddie as President of CFC, I must say I don't like his show on Foxtel. I've watched it a couple of times, but never enjoyed it. For that matter, I can no longer watch the Footy Show either and once upon a time it was a favourite of mine. I like "Open Mike" and I like to watch "Footy Classified". I like the way Gary Lyon and Mathew Lloyd go about their stuff. Eddie could learn from them when it comes to being a footy commentator.
Richard
Roar Guru
You are clearly an anarchist.
Richard
Roar Guru
I think you might find the damage to the Essendon brand has only just begun.
Richard
Roar Guru
No, completely disagree with you there Sean. If you're going to be a member of a team or an organisation and that team or organisation has rules, or conventions or protocols, then it is a condition of membership that you abide by those rules. If you are a member, you have the right to try and convince others to change the rules, but while those rules are in place you do not have the right to ignore them. Swanny is a great football player and a favourite of mine. But he knew the rules, as did his manager, Pickering. By ignoring those rules they both thumbed their noses at the club, the other players, the members and supporters and at the sponsors too. They both showed complete disregard for their obligations and complete disrespect for the rest of us who love our club. If it was a matter of national security, the penalty would have been much harsher. You're right, it was not a matter of national security, and the penalty put in place was less, but very appropriate. To fail to penalise the miscreants would have been to compound their offence to the rest of us, and would have been completely unacceptable. It's not Eddie, or Walshy, or Perty, or the Collingwood Football Club who have behaved inappropriately in this matter. In fact its my hero Swanny, his PW manager Pickering, Channel 9, The Footy Show and Damian Barrett who have broken the rules, and have done so for personal gain only. Shame on them. Shame on them!
Brewski
Guest
Sean it is called galvinising the troops, the us against the world mentality, and everyone is picking on little old us. RL has been using it for years, and in the last 5 or 10 has ramped up the code war offensive against the AFL using the same mentality. Cronulla got their biggest crowd on the weekend .... why ?. In fact i would argue, that RL in particular and the AFL on a much smaller degree, survive and prosper because of ' bad news stories'. i would also argue that RL in particular actually grows on the back of players behaving badly, the more the better.
Sean Lee
Expert
It is proof that even if someone comes out and breaks club protocol or says something that may 'damage' the brand, that it has little lasting effect on the balance sheet. Take a look at Essendon. Their brand has taken a massive hit yet their membership figures are up on the same time last year.
Sean Lee
Expert
Hi Richard. I'll say it again. It is football, not a matter of national security. I think sometimes officials get an over inflated opinion of their own importance. It happens at all levels, not just at the elite level. There is no question that Pert, Walsh and Maguire run their football club well. Eddie in particular has been excellent for Collingwood. His passion for the club is not in doubt. I do think however, that sometimes they need to take a step back and apply a bit of commonsense, rather than partaking in the sort of grandstanding that we saw last week. That was good for no one. Yes, I know that Swan broke protocol, but maybe this incident is an indicator that the protocol needs to be adjusted. Just an opinion!
Richard
Roar Guru
This article is naive in the extreme and shows a very poor grasp of how organisations work. You say you do not understand Collingwood's response and clearly that is true. Thankfully you are not in a position of influence. We have professionals like Gary Pert, Geoff Walsh and Eddie Maguire running our club who do understand these things.
Brewski
Guest
I think the heading of this article is incorrect. It should be .... 'Dear Eddie and Collingwood, God is not happy and wishes to regain some control. ' I see Collingwood is on target to break 75,000 members this season. .... would that be seen as conclusive proof that there is no God !.
Kev
Guest
It did come from me and I do believe it's justified. McGuire doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to crying about the media interviewing Collingwood's players without their permission because in the past, he has clearly demonstrated that he's happy to ignore that very rule he so arrogantly defends when it suits him and the Liam Jurrah interview is a classic example. The only difference here is that Swan plays for Collingwood and Jurrah doesn't. I said at the time of the Jurrah interview, that if someone else had pulled the same stunt that McGuire did and interviewed a Collingwood player without their permission, that he would be the first to jump up and down about it and have a sook about the lack of adherence to protocol and this does nothing but confirm it. What's that saying? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. McGuire could learn plenty from that.