Opinion 2021 Non-Crows AFL 3: Things Fall Apart!

[WaynesWorld19]

Why not delist Atkins with his Contract ??

Mitch Cleary discussion this morning on SEN

https://media.whooshkaa.com/show/5194/episode/928467.mp3

 

[Thetrader15]

Why not delist Atkins with his Contract ??

Mitch Cleary discussion this morning on SEN

https://media.whooshkaa.com/show/5194/episode/928467.mp3

It needs to be a mutual agreement. I'm guessing Rory wouldn't have agreed to it, it's a big risk for him to take that he wouldn't have been re-drafted given his contract owing and that he can hardly get a spot in the team.

 

[Vader]

It needs to be a mutual agreement. I'm guessing Rory wouldn't have agreed to it, it's a big risk for him to take that he wouldn't have been re-drafted given his contract owing and that he can hardly get a spot in the team.

He still gets paid, even if he isn't re-drafted.

 

[Thetrader15]

He still gets paid, even if he isn't re-drafted.

If he's mutually delisted, it would be a settlement, so not necessarily 100%.

If I was Atkins, I'd be saying "No way" to any risk of not being on the main list.

 

[skam85]

Greenwood just proved why he is no longer at the Crows. What a terrible individual and a cancer of a human. The AFL should veto this deal. This was an agreed upon move by Gold Coast and Greenwood for list management purposes with an intended outcome that would never have happened had Gold Coast known his intention which I am sure they would have happily traded him.

For him and his manager to be secretly negotiating deals behind gc back is beyond the realms of disgusting. In no way should a player ever be allowed to con their way out of a contract and be delisted. The precedent this sets is massive. Can't blame gc for this at all. The AFL must squash this and I'd even go so far as to ban Greenwood for 12 months. You just can't circle jerk and play the system like this.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

What a crazy overreaction.
Gold Coast delisted him to try and be cute with list management and it backfired. The end.

 

[MRB37]

What a crazy overreaction.
Gold Coast delisted him to try and be cute with list management and it backfired. The end.

The problem is they didn't just do it, they told him their plan and he agreed to it, publically declared so, then 24 hours later ran off when a better offer came.

The Suns were stupid to do it, but Hugh probably showed that his word doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot.

 

[George Kramer]

The problem is they didn't just do it, they told him their plan and he agreed to it, publically declared so, then 24 hours later ran off when a better offer came.

The Suns were stupid to do it, but Hugh probably showed that his word doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot.

When you are talking about $1M, I don't think any of us would have done it differently. We also don't know what pressure Gold Coast placed on Greenwood to say yes. As for Greenwoods tweet, I dare say self pride would have kicked in to show he was still valued and not just sacked.

 

[MRB37]

When you are talking about $1M, I don't think any of us would have done it differently. We also don't know what pressure Gold Coast placed on Greenwood to say yes. As for Greenwoods tweet, I dare say self pride would have kicked in to show he was still valued and not just sacked.

I'm not blaming Greenwood for moving for the money, he's gotta take care of himself and his family, I'm just saying a lot of people seem to be ignoring the fact he lied to the Suns.

 

[relapse]

What a crazy overreaction.
Gold Coast delisted him to try and be cute with list management and it backfired. The end.

Gold Coast did try and be smart and it backfired, but it was also a bit duplicitous of Greenwood too to take advantage of the situation like he did.

The problem for me is that i am just not completely buying the "nothing to see here" mindset that's coming from the Vic media. I'd be willing to bet that the narrative would completely different had it have been Adelaide/Sydney or West Coast doing this to one of the Victorian clubs.

 

[Vader]

If he's mutually delisted, it would be a settlement, so not necessarily 100%.

If I was Atkins, I'd be saying "No way" to any risk of not being on the main list.

If it's a club instigated delisting, then he gets 100%. The only way he doesn't, is if he voluntarily retires - and there's no way Atkins is doing that.

 

[skam85]

It doesn't appear to be 4D chess from GC's list management.

Bit of a slap in the face to Hugh to think he wouldn't attract interest of other clubs and amazing levels of hubris from the Suns.

They couldn't think of any other players that wouldn't attract interest, instead choosing a best 22 player? He's not even the least desirable former Crow on their list.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Bit of a slap in the face to Hugh to think he wouldn't attract interest of other clubs and amazing levels of hubris from the Suns.

They couldn't think of any other players that wouldn't attract interest, instead choosing a best 22 player? He's not even the least desirable former Crow on their list.

The issue here where the AFL must step in is the abuse of the system by both parties. It's clear Gold Coast are trying to pr the damage like its not a big deal. Privately though they'd be furious. Greenwood agreed to this structure that's the only reason it happened. The very basis he agreed and be relisted definitely is not a good look. The afl can't have this look.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[skam85]

There is no way he could say no to that and to think we wouldn't give him 3 years 2 years ago....

Still the right decision from an AFC list management perspective though.
The value we got back on the other hand..

 

[adelaidecrows]

Still the right decision from an AFC list management perspective though.
The value we got back on the other hand..

Greenwood was ok. But he isn't someone we are missing. If we kept him he'd be in the twos as we would still be pumping games into the kids. It's no loss.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[skam85]

The problem is they didn't just do it, they told him their plan and he agreed to it, publically declared so, then 24 hours later ran off when a better offer came.

The Suns were stupid to do it, but Hugh probably showed that his word doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot.

Of course it takes two to tango. But when North offer him a 3rd year trigger where he has to play five games in 2yrs for another guaranteed $400k, he'd be crazy not to take it with his young family.

Hugh is partly responsible but GC started the ball rolling.

 

[skam85]

Gold Coast did try and be smart and it backfired, but it was also a bit duplicitous of Greenwood too to take advantage of the situation like he did.

The problem for me is that i am just not completely buying the "nothing to see here" mindset that's coming from the Vic media. I'd be willing to bet that the narrative would completely different had it have been Adelaide/Sydney or West Coast doing this to one of the Victorian clubs.

This conspiracy crap is so tired.
Gold Coast are not a Victorian club

 

[skam85]

The issue here where the AFL must step in is the abuse of the system by both parties. It's clear Gold Coast are trying to pr the damage like its not a big deal. Privately though they'd be furious. Greenwood agreed to this structure that's the only reason it happened. The very basis he agreed and be relisted definitely is not a good look. The afl can't have this look.

On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Why though?
The AFL have egg on their face if they do this. It's the AFL rules that the Suns exploited. Why would they overrule their own rules?

 

[GROTTO]

Of course it takes two to tango. But when North offer him a 3rd year trigger where he has to play five games in 2yrs for another guaranteed $400k, he'd be crazy not to take it with his young family.

Hugh is partly responsible but GC started the ball rolling.

Clubs and players need to do whats best for themselves, at the end of the day no one really cares about the other.

If every person in here was in Greenwood's position they would have taken North's offer of a "guaranteed" 3rd year in a pandemic world with a young family. In fact I would argue its irresponsible if he didnt.

 

[Sanders]

It needs to be a mutual agreement. I'm guessing Rory wouldn't have agreed to it, it's a big risk for him to take that he wouldn't have been re-drafted given his contract owing and that he can hardly get a spot in the team.

it does not need to be mutual. At all.

the player does not need to give consent.

 

[Sanders]

If he's mutually delisted, it would be a settlement, so not necessarily 100%.

If I was Atkins, I'd be saying "No way" to any risk of not being on the main list.

there is NO such thing as mutual delisting.

 

[skam85]

there is NO such thing as mutual delisting.

Does the fact Greenwood was contracted change anything? I'm not sure on the finer details of that one.
I suppose he doesn't have to agree knowing that he'd still get his coin regardless, which reinforces how dumb GC have been here.

 

[Vader]

Does the fact Greenwood was contracted change anything? I'm not sure on the finer details of that one.
I suppose he doesn't have to agree knowing that he'd still get his coin regardless, which reinforces how dumb GC have been here.

By delisting him while he was still contracted, GC put themselves in a bind. They are liable for any gap between what North Melbourne are paying him, and what they were contracted to pay him - for the duration of their contract.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

By delisting him while he was still contracted, GC put themselves in a bind. They are liable for any gap between what North Melbourne are paying him, and what they were contracted to pay him - for the duration of their contract.

Is that still the case re the Contract $$$ gap ...if GC are paying Greenwood $450K a year, and NORTH add another year making it 2 x $400K a year ...is GC still liable for the 1 year @ $50K shortfall ??

Also, do you know how a Contract trigger clause is handled, if Greenwood had a trigger for another year at GC ? ....I assume that's not a consideration

 

[Vader]

Is that still the case re the Contract $$$ gap ...if GC are paying Greenwood $450K a year, and NORTH add another year making it 2 x $400K a year ...is GC still liable for the 1 year @ $50K shortfall ??

Also, do you know how a Contract trigger clause is handled, if Greenwood had a trigger for another year at GC ? ....I assume that's not a consideration

Yes, given the scenario you described, GC would need to pay Greenwood 1 year @ $50K. After that, his salary is 100% North Melbourne's responsibility.

I'm not sure about trigger clauses. I assume they would also need to pay him for any additional "triggered" years, provided he'd met the "trigger" clauses before being delisted. Obviously games played for North would not count towards triggering a GC contract extension, but if he'd done enough in years 1-3 to trigger a 5th year at GC...

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I'm not sure about trigger clauses. I assume they would also need to pay him for any additional "triggered" years, provided he'd met the "trigger" clauses before being delisted. Obviously games played for North would not count towards triggering a GC contract extension, but if he'd done enough in years 1-3 to trigger a 5th year at GC...

The trigger clause is normally in the final Contract year (2022) .....so no-one can know if he will hit the trigger requirements, thus they surely couldn't be a responsibility of GC