Home / Sports / Geelong's Secret Player Waiver Sparks AFL Investigation

Geelong's Secret Player Waiver Sparks AFL Investigation

Summary

  • A secret player waiver was signed by Jake Kolodjashnij with Geelong.
  • The AFL is investigating if the club broke any rules with the deal.
  • Concerns exist about player safety and corporate duty of care.
Geelong's Secret Player Waiver Sparks AFL Investigation

The Geelong Football Club is under investigation by the AFL concerning a secret waiver signed by player Jake Kolodjashnij. Kolodjashnij, who has a history of concussions, agreed to assume responsibility for future head injuries in a deal not sanctioned by the AFL.

The AFL Commission has appointed an independent lawyer to determine if the club contravened any rules. This move follows an examination of Kolodjashnij's injury history by the AFL's concussion panel, which allowed him to continue playing.

The waiver, reportedly signed as a condition of continued employment, included informed consent and a liability release for the club. Its secrecy from the AFL Players Association and the AFL itself has raised serious concerns about good faith and proper purpose.

This situation also highlights the lack of statutory worker's compensation and the difficulty in obtaining insurance for head trauma for AFL players. The article questions the decisions of Geelong's directors and officers, referencing their duties under the Corporations Act regarding care, diligence, good faith, and proper purpose.

Furthermore, the article suggests that standard AFL playing contracts and the collective bargaining agreement do not permit such "side deals" regarding liability. The enforceability of the waiver is questioned, particularly concerning future neurodegenerative diseases. The Occupational Health and Safety Act's provisions for safe working environments are also discussed, noting that employee consent does not override these criminal duties.

The piece concludes by questioning whether Geelong's board acted ethically and courageously, contrasting the "easy road" taken with the "hard road" of having difficult career-ending conversations. It criticizes a system that leaves players with uninsurable risks and a boardroom culture that may have prioritized a "defensible YES" over a "correct answer."

Disclaimer: This story has been auto-aggregated and auto-summarised by a computer program. This story has not been edited or created by the Feedzop team.

Read more news on

Property Code: 5571