-
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round SF Winner: And_ROOS
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Blues face Cloke payout
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
it should be fisher sacked and being payed out, bad decision blues.
Delisting Cloke and picking him up as a mature aged rookie could be the plan. If this happens then expect Fisher to play his 2 games to get him to 100 games and then he will definitely be gone at the end of the year.
Cloke will be following him out the door I think.
Cloke will be following him out the door I think.
All things being equal, your basic breach of contract claim is about losses.
If Cam goes to another club at the same money, he wouldn't really have any right to his salary from us as he isn't any worse off. If he has to cop a drop in salary, we might have to pay him the difference. If he doesn't get picked up, we'd be liable for the lot.
Of course the details of a contract might change this but in very general terms, thats the legal position.
If Cam goes to another club at the same money, he wouldn't really have any right to his salary from us as he isn't any worse off. If he has to cop a drop in salary, we might have to pay him the difference. If he doesn't get picked up, we'd be liable for the lot.
Of course the details of a contract might change this but in very general terms, thats the legal position.
I gather that's the case. Cloke has been on a such a low pay with us that on any expecation he'll get picked up, which there is, the payaways will be low, if at all.
Thats why ericpascoe says we'll pick him up if no one else does.
From a Club point of view this is a better risk than delisting Fisher because a) Fisher is on more and b) Likelihood of someone else picking up Fisher at this stage is unfortunately remote.
Neither player is likely to be at Carlton in 2011 so its really not a big deal.
Thats why ericpascoe says we'll pick him up if no one else does.
From a Club point of view this is a better risk than delisting Fisher because a) Fisher is on more and b) Likelihood of someone else picking up Fisher at this stage is unfortunately remote.
Neither player is likely to be at Carlton in 2011 so its really not a big deal.
blue gunslinger
Hall of Famer
the wablues will now distance themselves from Cam
In future we will try to only sponsor WA players
Anyway Cam. Your welcome
In future we will try to only sponsor WA players
Anyway Cam. Your welcome
Agreed but I'm sure the club have factored this into their plans. At the end of the day, anything a new club pays towards his salary is better than paying him out completely.
JuddFevGoal
Team Captain
The legal position is about breach of contract.
It would be more than just going to another club for the same money.
This new club knows that it has the Blues by the balls because if they offer him half, we'll still legally owe him the other half. That club would have to agree with Carlton to pick up Carlton's contract liability. This 'deal' really should've been done before de-listing him I would've thought...
Perhaps the club has a covert plan...
Whatever club Cloke goes to (eg: Port) would still be bound to pay him the legal minimum AFL wage for the 2010 season. Assuming this is less than what he is contracted to be on in 2010 with Carlton, then the Blues would have to make up the difference.
Port couldn't just sign him for $5,000 a year and expect Carlton to tip in the remaining $145k or whatever it is. Doesn't work that way.
In my opinion, we should proceed as follows:
* Option A - Port take Cloke in either the ND or PSD, we then take Maguire in the PSD.
or
* Option B - If Port do not take Cloke in the PSD (their pick is before ours so we should know exactly where we stand by the time our pick comes around), then we still take Maguire in the PSD and take Cloke with our last possible rookie pick and cough up the cash. At least we still have him floating around as a back up in case we get hit by injuries. Who knows, someone else might jump in and nab him as a rookie pick ahead of us anyway?
Whilst we do not know for certain exactly what Cloke's contract for 2010 is worth with Carlton (say $150k?), another club would only legally have to pay him the AFL minimum of $64,700 base (plus match payments). This could see Carlton out of pocket $80-90k approx. Not a major issue i would have thought.
If he signs a new 2 to 3 year contract with Port we don't have to pay anything. Given it's a new contract our contract becomes null and void. He can play for Port on "our" contract and we pay him, or part pay him, but there's no guarantees for him after a year there if he has a sh1t year.
Heard Paul Connor talk, Fev's former manager, about it on SEN when discussing Fev's trade and it's ramifications.
Like Garlett???
We might have to pay the difference between his wages during the remaining year of his Carlton contract.
blue gunslinger
Hall of Famer
guess the new committee will have some work to doLike Garlett???
The Exorcist
Club Legend
Depends on Cam's contract as to whether he's entitled to $ or not
Cam's situation is different to Fev's situation because Fev agreed to the trade and the variation to his contract, i.e agreed to a new employer etc
From what I see Cam's been sacked, and if he's on a fixed term contract which doesn't finish till next year then he's entitled to be paid out the remainder of the term. Even if he gets picked up by another club, Carlton would most likely still have to pay him out.
Unless there's an escape clause or if he agrees to something different
Depends on the contract wording.
Cam's situation is different to Fev's situation because Fev agreed to the trade and the variation to his contract, i.e agreed to a new employer etc
From what I see Cam's been sacked, and if he's on a fixed term contract which doesn't finish till next year then he's entitled to be paid out the remainder of the term. Even if he gets picked up by another club, Carlton would most likely still have to pay him out.
Unless there's an escape clause or if he agrees to something different
Depends on the contract wording.
40yearBLUE
Norm Smith Medallist
My understanding is he does not have a contract, he has an option, that he can exercise. If he is picked up by another club he obviously cannot exercise that option and therefore Carlton don't have any obligation to him.
And as for Ports interest and the amount they offer him (some suggest that Port would low ball him based on Carlton having to pay part of the difference) there are other variables that would come into play, such as inducing Cloke to move interstate, especially if as suggested the hawks or another Vic club may also be interested in him.
And as for Ports interest and the amount they offer him (some suggest that Port would low ball him based on Carlton having to pay part of the difference) there are other variables that would come into play, such as inducing Cloke to move interstate, especially if as suggested the hawks or another Vic club may also be interested in him.
The Exorcist
Club Legend
Problem is that if he exercises the option and then the Blues don't honour his decision, then the Blues will almost definitely owe Cloke $, even if Cloke goes to another Club (provided he first wanted to stay at Carlton under the option and Carlton then said no)
40yearBLUE
Norm Smith Medallist
I think it only becomes an issue if he is not picked up, you cant exercise the option and join another club, but I see what you are saying, his "option" was to stay and we are saying no you cant so in effect he is not getting to exercise his option.
If he is picked up by someone else I dont think the club has to tip in for him next season, if he is not picked up we could re rookie him if we felt there was no other mature age rookie that suited us which also means no penalty payments, but if another mature age was felt to be of better value than Cloke and he ends up out of the AFL then yes we have to pay him out.
At the start of this year I thought Cloke was about to surprise a lot of us, and I still think he could do that. I just cant put my finger on what is lacking, (no need for the smart asses to help me out here either
) he seems to have all the attributes and shows glimpses but never seems to have a stand out game or kick a bag to get that confidence boost. I guess when you compare the swap we made with Collingwood we all got about the same value.
Only if he goes with our contract from what Paul Connors said on SEN, Re: Fev. If he signs a brand new deal with Port on different money then we pay nothing as it's a new contract. Our's is null and void. That was interesting when I heard that.
Nothing to stop clubs working something out I suppose. Port might say he has a new deal but not give one unless Carlton contribute. Means we reduce our payout. That negotiation though not necessity.
I find that hard to understand unless there is a clause in the contract that specifically states that our contract is voided if he signs one with another club that supercedes it. In very general terms, we've breached the contract and Cam has a right to receiving the full benefit of it.
That said, such a clause would make perfect sense so it might well be in there.
I'm not sure that's right. I think the position would be that Cam exercised his option to stay on whatever money he was on, but we've said no thanks. If he gets picked up on less money, we'd still be liable generally.
However, a clause such as the one Jim posted about makes alot of sense, so it might well be the case that we get out of jail if he gets redrafted. Connors would know more than us either way.
Thinks seem to be looking good for Cam
Hawthorn to swoop on delisted ruckman
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/87368/default.aspx
I can't really see Cam playing for the hawks but if it means goose then off you go son
Hawthorn to swoop on delisted ruckman
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/87368/default.aspx
I can't really see Cam playing for the hawks but if it means goose then off you go son
Similar threads
