News DONE DEAL: Patrick Ryder traded to Port Adelaide

[ZingerB]

So potentially the afl step in a void the contract, making Ryder a free agent and then award essendrug pick 21.

We keep pick 17 and the druggies get pick 21.

Can see that going down well - but might be the only option. Can't see the afl wanting this to drag out in the courts - bombers don't mind, they love the court.

But given how Essendon are, why would they accept pick 21, when they rejected 17?

 

[Roycroft]

But given how Essendon are, why would they accept pick 21, when they rejected 17?

wouldn't Ryder be a DFA? It is then up to the AFL to award compensation, if any.

 

[ZingerB]

wouldn't Ryder be a DFA? It is then up to the AFL to award compensation, if any.

We seem to be talking about 2 different things. Essendon would only agree to let him go through FA if they were getting something better than 17, which will now no happen. Ryder would only become a DFA (against Essendon's will) if he challenged (successfully) his contract on duty of care grounds, at which point Essendon would get nothing.

 

[Forzaport]

AFL are a party to the contract, but the clubs are the employer.

Not exactly.

The CBA is between the AFL players and the AFL - it overrides the standard playing contract which is between club and player. Basically, the AFL has the power to void standard playing contracts at the grievance tribunal [Clause 43.15(xviii)(D)].

 

[PAFCsince1870]

We seem to be talking about 2 different things. Essendon would only agree to let him go through FA if they were getting something better than 17, which will now no happen. Ryder would only become a DFA (against Essendon's will) if he challenged (successfully) his contract on duty of care grounds, at which point Essendon would get nothing.

Exactly.

It's irrelevant if the AFL hasn't publicly ruled out letting Ryder and Essendon tear up his contract as Essendon will never agree to it unless it involves us trading 17 for peanuts.

To the grievance tribunal we go.

 

[Forzaport]

So potentially the afl step in a void the contract, making Ryder a free agent and then award essendrug pick 21.

We keep pick 17 and the druggies get pick 21.

Can see that going down well - but might be the only option. Can't see the afl wanting this to drag out in the courts - bombers don't mind, they love the court.

No. Essendon will only get compensation if they mutually agree with Ryder to end the contract and make him a free agent. If the AFL voids Ryder's contract, he'll be considered a delisted free agrent and Essendon won't get any free agency compensation

 

[scotty13]

I think the club needs to tell Ryder they won't deal with Essendon anymore. We have other players we need to try and get to the club and we can't wait to see if we can make a deal with the bombers. Ryder should go to the AFL today and seek his contract ripped up now for duty of care breach.

 

[Tibbs]

Well after this ridiculous week, I have come to the unalterable conclusion that Essendon, the club, the board, the coach, and their supporters, are absolutely TOXIC. Ryder is well clear of that sick, toxic, mess that is Windy Hill. TOXIC HILL, more apt!!

WINDY HILL

 

[Kickpuncher]

It took you up until this week to realise this?

 

[SwampRat]

Not exactly.

The CBA is between the AFL players and the AFL - it overrides the standard playing contract which is between club and player. Basically, the AFL has the power to void standard playing contracts at the grievance tribunal [Clause 43.15(xviii)(D)].

True, but that doesn't mean the clubs are not the employer, which is what I said.

 

[Noobz0r]

Love the cheap potshots at us in their "Essendon only" thread. We're scummy hypocrites, lulz. And they still seem to think they're the ones with the power in the trade. As soon as Ryder said Port and only Port they lost the upper hand.

And trying to say that we don't really care about his welfare due to not giving up enough quality to get him, who the **** injected him with drugs in the first place???

Edit: Lulz one of them suggested 17 + Ryder so we both get a ruckman.

 

[melanChronic]

I almost wish that he hadn't nominated only us, because then the Bombers could see that our offer of 17 is fairly reasonable given the circumstances. If they had to choose between Brisbane's second rounder or our first, then they would be running away with 17. Or maybe GWS would have offered them something stupid, they don;t seem to "get" trading yet.

 

[Eddie Woloschek]

Essendon's obduracy may cost them dearly. Outside the first dozen picks, it's a crapshoot in the draft anyway. Simon Black in the 30s; Adam Goodes in the 40s, Robbie Gray in the 50s, James Hird in the 60s and plenty, plenty more great players from late rounds. They should take Pick 17. With their coaching situation up in the air, which player would want to go there. Dodoro is dreaming and he is delusional. So much so, I'm surprised Trigg didn't grab him for the Starlings a long time ago.

 

[Forzaport]

True, but that doesn't mean the clubs are not the employer, which is what I said.

The clubs are the employer insofar as player X plays AFL football for club Y but for the purposes of what Portia was saying, the AFL is the employer in this instance.

 

[Tibbs]

It took you up until this week to realise this?

I'm slow!

Here is one of Essendon getting ready for Pre-season training at TOXIC HILL:

 

[tnk64]

So Essendon are going to go back to asking for Wingard, Wines or Hartlett. In order to understand the trading preferences of each club we need to understand their general motivating factors more broadly conceived.
Port Adelaide: we exist to win premierships.
Essendon: we exist to win court cases.
The ASADA verdict was for Essendon what the 2007 Grand Final for us - an utter humiliation on the biggest day in the footy calendar. By making ridiculous requests Essendon is hoping that they can take us to court, which is their equivalent of playing in a Grand Final. If they win, they'll be (at least in their own deluded heads) partially redeemed for the flogging they received last time on the highest stage. If they lose, then they suffer another Grand Final humiliation.
Let's make it happen: Paddy Ryder to Port Adelaide for free.

 

[SwampRat]

The clubs are the employer insofar as player X plays AFL football for club Y but for the purposes of what Portia was saying, the AFL is the employer in this instance.

No, the clubs are the employer in the full, legal sense. There are a multitude of reasons an injunction would fail, but claiming the players to be AFL employees is not one of them.

The AFL is the governing body which has final say on a number of important things and can veto contracts, but the club is the employer. Club as employer is the whole basis of the safe work environment clause. From the CBA

Safe Working Environment
(a) Each AFL Club, as the employer of Players, has obligations under the Occupational
Health and Safety legislation in the respective States to take all reasonable steps to
protect the health and safety of Players at work. Each AFL Club shall set up
appropriate workplace consultative procedures involving Players and other
employees consistent with relevant Occupational Health and Safety legislation to
progress health and safety issues.

 

[snozulu]

post office friends, friends with ryders uncle. sounds legit

Doesn't ryder have 2 years left on his current contract? e.g. it wouldn't just be 12 months

he could just retire for a season then come out of retirement

 

[240volt]

Megadeal time!

Port gain: Daniel Gorringe, (Paddy Ryder)
Port lose: Pick 17, Ben Newton

GC gain: Allen Christensen, Essendon third rounder
GC lose: Pick 15, Daniel Gorringe

Geelong gain: Pick 15, Ben Newton, <club X second rounder>
Geelong lose: Allen Christensen, Geelong third rounder

Essendon gain: Pick 17, (pick 21)
Essendon lose: Elliot Kavanagh/Ben Howlett, Essendon third rounder, (Paddy Ryder)

<Club X> gain: Elliot Kavanagh/Ben Howlett, Geelong third rounder
<Club X> lose: <Club X second rounder>

Can i have fries with that and a super size coke (we pass THE Coke onto Essendon)

 

[BruceLight]

Ideal IMO would be
Port: Ryder (as a FA) and Gorringe
Essendon: 17 and 21 (as compo for FA loss)
GC: 35 (from Port) + Kavanagh or some other Essendon player.

This would save Port's list from an Essendon list clogger, give GC a bit more for Gorringe and obviously Essendon should be happy.

If Newton wants to go to Geelong he could also come into it with a horrible 4-some...

Newts (and Kav?) to Geelong + a GC pick (2nd rnd?) and then Christensen to GC. Port may be able to squeeze a 3rd/4th rounder from GC or Geelong in this scenario but it may be enough just helping to facilitate Gorringe to Port.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given the News on the AFL blocking any silly shenanigans like 17 for two late round picks, I think my idea from last night becomes even more likely. Note: the FA route is still open.

Essendon have Kavanagh and others wanting to leave and will likely bite the bullet that losing one of them to satisfy the AFL gain 17 AND 21 for Ryder. Assuming Newton wants out of Port (is this confirmed?) it would look like this. Might be pushing it on Port getting 35 from Geelong... 55 instead seems too low though.

Port IN: Ryder, Gorringe, 35 OUT: Newton, 17, 37
Essendon IN: 17, 21 OUT: Ryder and Kavanagh / other
Gold Coast IN: Christensen, 37 OUT: 15, Gorringe
Geelong IN: 15, Newton, Kavangh OUT: Christensen, 35

I think its fairly balanced. 37 isn't enough for Gorringe but if we can help GC get Christensen without losing a player they'd be happy. Geelong get two decent players as well as 15 for Christensen... if this is over then 35 or 55 to Port for essentially providing Netwon AND Kav seems fair.

Essendon BF posters would no doubt say they deserve more but in this option we're essentially ensuring they get two end of first round picks so I'm sure the club would have to go for it.

 

[treegz]

Wow, over on the Bombers board the consensus is that Paddy will be doing over Essendon by activating this clause. Not one of them realises that the clause is only an option because the club has done one over on Paddy in the first place. I thought they were bad before this whole Paddy ordeal, they are down right scary

 

[FallingLiefs]

Given the News on the AFL blocking any silly shenanigans like 17 for two late round picks, I think my idea from last night becomes even more likely. Note: the FA route is still open.

Essendon have Kavanagh and others wanting to leave and will likely bite the bullet that losing one of them to satisfy the AFL gain 17 AND 21 for Ryder. Assuming Newton wants out of Port (is this confirmed?) it would look like this. Might be pushing it on Port getting 35 from Geelong... 55 instead seems too low though.

Port IN: Ryder, Gorringe, 35 OUT: Newton, 17, 37
Essendon IN: 17, 21 OUT: Ryder and Kavanagh / other
Gold Coast IN: Christensen, 37 OUT: 15, Gorringe
Geelong IN: 15, Newton, Kavangh OUT: Christensen, 35

I think its fairly balanced. 37 isn't enough for Gorringe but if we can help GC get Christensen without losing a player they'd be happy. Geelong get two decent players as well as 15 for Christensen... if this is over then 35 or 55 to Port for essentially providing Netwon AND Kav seems fair.

Essendon BF posters would no doubt say they deserve more but in this option we're essentially ensuring they get two end of first round picks so I'm sure the club would have to go for it.

Best one I've seen. I can't really fault it.

 

[Forzaport]

No, the clubs are the employer in the full, legal sense. There are a multitude of reasons an injunction would fail, but claiming the players to be AFL employees is not one of them.

The AFL is the governing body which has final say on a number of important things and can veto contracts, but the club is the employer. Club as employer is the whole basis of the safe work environment clause. From the CBA

Safe Working Environment
(a) Each AFL Club, as the employer of Players, has obligations under the Occupational
Health and Safety legislation in the respective States to take all reasonable steps to
protect the health and safety of Players at work. Each AFL Club shall set up
appropriate workplace consultative procedures involving Players and other
employees consistent with relevant Occupational Health and Safety legislation to
progress health and safety issues.

You're quoting the CBA, which is a legally enforceable enterprise agreement between the AFL players and the AFL. In the full legal sense, the AFL (CBA) and the AFL clubs (Standard Playing Contract) are the employers.

For the purposes of what Portia was saying, the AFL are the principle employers.

 

[Young Gun #6]

Best one I've seen. I can't really fault it.

they blocked the proposal so where did 21 come from?

 

[Kickpuncher]

Wow, over on the Bombers board the consensus is that Paddy will be doing over Essendon by activating this clause. Not one of them realises that the clause is only an option because the club has done one over on Paddy in the first place. I thought they were bad before this whole Paddy ordeal, they are down right scary

They all believe what leader Hirdy tells them.