Bomber players could walk if they can prove a breach of contract

[DonsRule]

Lance, if he wanted to get out of his contract because he believed Essendon breached it, he goes to the tribunal, thereby activating this clause. Stop with the pedantic mumbo jumbo. You know what I meant. Besides which, it was touted back in 2013 that the players could get out of their contracts due to the health and safety breaches.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-players-can-walk-out-experts-20130822-2sekq.html

And, Peter Gordon seemed of the opposite view on radio the other day, that the breach would be difficult to prove. Talked about it quite a bit, but things like Ryder continued to play for 2 years would make his claim difficult. With Slater and Gordon's experience with the thalidomide case. He'd have a solid idea of what he is talking about too.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Ahh, classic Lance delusion. All the bidding right now is about personal terms, the way it is with every other out-of-contract player.

"personal terms"?

What sort of gibberish is that Ian?

Suitors are lining up. Connors has got the result he wanted to, and only gullible suckers like you are still falling for it

 

[IanW]

"personal terms"?

What sort of gibberish is that Ian?

Suitors are lining up. Connors has got the result he wanted to, and only gullible suckers like you are still falling for it

Personal terms are all about what the player gets paid, not what his old club gets given.

 

[Walter Sobchak]

If Ryder genuinely feels that Essendon breached their duty of care, and risked his and his family's health, the moral thing to do would be to let him go. Even through a disadvantageous trade. Forcing him to stay against his will in those circumstances would not be right.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Personal terms are all about what the player gets paid, not what his old club gets given.

yes, so he has 3 or 4 clubs all wanting to pay him roughly the same amount over the same period give or take. It's called competition. Then, when the club wants him, they put forward their best bid and hope it's successful, because if it's not someone else's will be.

This ooga booga clause of yours, it comes into effect Nov 1. AFTER the trade period. If you ever thought it was likely a club could take the gamble of failing at this, then having the only mechanism to get him being the PSD; then that possibility became even more unlikely the minute there became competition for his signature.

As I said, if a club wants to play hardball, they'll sit twiddling their fingers during the trade period and watch as a trade gets made with another more savvy club. Good dealing genius.

You've just been suckered by Connors

 

[jenny61_99]

There is an argument that he can, but I think there is a more compelling argument that he won't.

Definitely, not saying he will, but he most certainly has every right to.

 

[IanW]

yes, so he has 3 or 4 clubs all wanting to pay him roughly the same amount over the same period give or take. It's called competition. Then, when the club wants him, they put forward their best bid and hope it's successful, because if it's not someone else's will be.

This ooga booga clause of yours, it comes into effect Nov 1. AFTER the trade period. If you ever thought it was likely a club could take the gamble of failing at this, then having the only mechanism to get him being the PSD; then that possibility became even more unlikely the minute there became competition for his signature.

As I said, if a club wants to play hardball, they'll sit twiddling their fingers during the trade period and watch as a trade gets made with another more savvy club. Good dealing genius.

You've just been suckered by Connors

More classic Lance Uppercut self-delusion.

Connors outcome is the best outcome for his player. Thats what he gets paid on.

As clubs have three assets - tradeable players, draft picks and cap room - any player that requires only one of these is a better deal for that club.

Therefore, for Ryder to be "worth it" for the acquiring club, he could have a high cap number, or a low cap number and cost a draft pick to acquire, and so on.

In short, Essendon's interests and Connors do not meet - Essendon want draft picks or tradeable players, and dont care what Ryder gets paid. Connors does care what Ryder gets paid. The acquring club are neutral, depending on the combination of cap room, trade assets and draft picks.

Essendon's top priority is reputational risk. They cannot, under any circumstances, let the truth about their program come out - that they dont know what Ryder was doped with, because the records were either forged, not kept or shredded. An arbitration hearing will involve questions being asked about what drugs Ryder was given and when. Essendon will have to answer those questions, or let him go.

Therefore, Connors will negotiate personal terms first, and Ryder and the new club will put together a draft contract, consistent with him getting a release from his current contract. Essendon will then be threatened with the arbitration hearing, with the alternative being a face-saving deal. This deal might be made, or might not be made - but unless Essendon are willing to have a third forum put a spotlight on their doping program (*), Essendon dont have a lot of cards to play.

My guess is a second round for third round pick swap would be enough to save face, and this gets Ryder to the club that offers him the best combination of lifestyle, likely finals and money.


(*) And not just on the WADA-uncompliant drugs - "How often was Mr Ryder given the anti-psychotic drugs ? Are those drugs approved for use in Australia ? Where did Essendon obtain those drugs ? Why was Mr Ryder given those drugs ? Were side effects discussed with Mr Ryder ? What was the involvement in the club doctor in giving Mr Ryder these anti-psychotic drugs" and so on

 

[jenny61_99]

"personal terms"?

What sort of gibberish is that Ian?

Suitors are lining up. Connors has got the result he wanted to, and only gullible suckers like you are still falling for it

Honest question Lance. Do you think - based on everything that is in the public arena at this stage - that the players wouldn't have grounds for claiming breach of contract due to the severe lack of health and safety protocols over the duration of the peptide program?

 

[Argy]

Honest question Lance. Do you think - based on everything that is in the public arena at this stage - that the players wouldn't have grounds for claiming breach of contract due to the severe lack of health and safety protocols over the duration of the peptide program?

I would think the fact EFC admitted to, and accepted penalties for, breaches relating to the administration of a drug program would mean that the players would be on reasonably strong grounds when it came to demonstrating that there was a failure of the club's duty of care.

 

[B0SK]

what's this nonsense of him "activating" this clause?

He doesn't have the option to "activate" it. He has the option of going to a grievances tribunal and asking for the case to be assessed by independent arbiters picked by the club and the AFLPA.

Another process who's legality can be challenged?

 

[coryne]

I would think the fact EFC admitted to, and accepted penalties for, breaches relating to the administration of a drug program would mean that the players would be on reasonably strong grounds when it came to demonstrating that there was a failure of the club's duty of care.

But if Middleton rules the ASADA investigation as being "illegal" then that is proof that the EFC have done nothing wrong, and they will sue the AFL to reclaim their penalties for BTGID (well according to Robbo and his mates at the HS anyway ..........)

 

[FuManchu]

Honest question Lance. Do you think - based on everything that is in the public arena at this stage - that the players wouldn't have grounds for claiming breach of contract due to the severe lack of health and safety protocols over the duration of the peptide program?

The AFL have already established that the club breached health and safety protocols, Ziggy has established this. All it requires is a player to proceed against the club and use this new clause.

This being the first player to potentially do so, a lot is open to conjecture. My belief is if he can prove a breach he can opt to be a free agent and go to club of choice. But the noises are that he wants the club to get something back so wants to go the trade path. So I believe he has 2 choices on how he exits.

As for being able to leave the club due to EFC's breaches of protocols. I think the AFL's sanctions last year have already established that these breaches occurred and EFC's acceptance of the sanction is acknowledgement. And given the player contracts have the AFL as a party to each contract, EFC are going to be hard pressed to deny any AFL inserted clauses.

 

[tigerwill]

yes, so he has 3 or 4 clubs all wanting to pay him roughly the same amount over the same period give or take. It's called competition. Then, when the club wants him, they put forward their best bid and hope it's successful, because if it's not someone else's will be.

This ooga booga clause of yours, it comes into effect Nov 1. AFTER the trade period. If you ever thought it was likely a club could take the gamble of failing at this, then having the only mechanism to get him being the PSD; then that possibility became even more unlikely the minute there became competition for his signature.

As I said, if a club wants to play hardball, they'll sit twiddling their fingers during the trade period and watch as a trade gets made with another more savvy club. Good dealing genius.

You've just been suckered by Connors

You make it sound like an auction, really it's about Ryder to decide where it best suits him. (If he does really want to go)
What happens if Ryder declares he will only go to (say) Brisbane. Y'know selects them as his club of choice. Would the other clubs drop off?
Essendon do a deal with Brisbane or Brisbane as a last resort wait until it goes to the grievance committee. Brisbane are no worse off.
Ryder stays and essendon have a disgruntled player to try to turn around. Are they better off?

 

[Argy]

The AFL have already established that the club breached health and safety protocols, Ziggy has established this. All it requires is a player to proceed against the club and use this new clause.

This being the first player to potentially do so, a lot is open to conjecture. My belief is if he can prove a breach he can opt to be a free agent and go to club of choice. But the noises are that he wants the club to get something back so wants to go the trade path. So I believe he has 2 choices on how he exits.

As for being able to leave the club due to EFC's breaches of protocols. I think the AFL's sanctions last year have already established that these breaches occurred and EFC's acceptance of the sanction is acknowledgement. And given the player contracts have the AFL as a party to each contract, EFC are going to be hard pressed to deny any AFL inserted clauses.

Let's be clear about this. It is not a new clause in relation to breach of contract (that provision has always been there). It is a change to how players are treated by the AFL if they do 'walk' after a proven a breach. Instead of going into the draft, as they did previously, they are treated as unrestricted free agents. Simple really.

 

[FuManchu]

Let's be clear about this. It is not a new clause in relation to breach of contract (that provision has always been there). It is a change to how players are treated by the AFL if they do 'walk' after a proven a breach. Instead of going into the draft, as they did previously, they are treated as unrestricted free agents. Simple really.

That is true. But it did change and it can effect the way A player opts to get out. Hence the discussion about trading Ryder or him leaving as a free agent.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

The AFL have already established that the club breached health and safety protocols, Ziggy has established this. All it requires is a player to proceed against the club and use this new clause.

This being the first player to potentially do so, a lot is open to conjecture. My belief is if he can prove a breach he can opt to be a free agent and go to club of choice. But the noises are that he wants the club to get something back so wants to go the trade path. So I believe he has 2 choices on how he exits.

As for being able to leave the club due to EFC's breaches of protocols. I think the AFL's sanctions last year have already established that these breaches occurred and EFC's acceptance of the sanction is acknowledgement. And given the player contracts have the AFL as a party to each contract, EFC are going to be hard pressed to deny any AFL inserted clauses.

imo the only reason the club accepted those penalties was they got threatened of getting de-registered.

 

[IanW]

imo the only reason the club accepted those penalties was they got threatened of getting de-registered.

The fact that de-registration was a credible threat should make you stop and think.

Remember, deregistration has to be approved by the other clubs - just the AFL Commission cannot do it.

 

[FuManchu]

imo the only reason the club accepted those penalties was they got threatened of getting de-registered.

Then more the fool them.

It funny you see them willing to compromise their principles here but stand firm on other principles.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Then more the fool them.

It funny you see them willing to compromise their principles here but stand firm on other principles.

I have no problem in Ryder leaving but not via some bs clause.

 

[FuManchu]

I have no problem in Ryder leaving but not via some bs clause.

It ain't BS. The AFL and Ziggy both identified breaches. ASADA probably have too, but EFC are trying to suppress that.

You tell me what you think is BS

 

[Hollow Knight]

I have no problem in Ryder leaving but not via some bs clause.

Do you have a problem with the principle of an exit clause? Or just in this context?

I would have thought that there is a reasonable argument to be made that a club's contract with a player is contingent on some level of duty of care, just as a player can have their contract torn up if they don't meet certain expectations.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Do you have a problem with the principle of an exit clause? Or just in this context?

I would have thought that there is a reasonable argument to be made that a club's contract with a player is contingent on some level of duty of care, just as a player can have their contract torn up if they don't meet certain expectations.

If we want's leave because the club failed it's duty of care then fine but i want the club compensated and not leave as a DFA with the club getting **** all in return.

 

[Armchair Critic]

If we want's leave because the club failed it's duty of care then fine but i want the club compensated and not leave as a DFA.

Compensated for breaching duty of care. Yeah ok then

 

[Hollow Knight]

If we want's leave because the club failed it's duty of care then fine but i want the club compensated and not leave as a DFA.

If my employer breaches my contract and I leave, my new employer isn't obligated to compensate them.

 

[FuManchu]

If we want's leave because the club failed it's duty of care then fine but i want the club compensated and not leave as a DFA with the club getting **** all in return.

Why should you be rewarded with any compensation?

If you breach the duty of care relating to medical practices, you really should be looking at criminal charges, not draft picks.