Essendon sign Mal Michael

[Bollox]

I thought you wanted Essendon to be more aggressive?

Yeah i do ...good point lol

BUT hell i dunno...smells like a set up thats all.

It'll blow over i guess....could get a few damn good years out of him and he;s the sort of bloke that'll help a LOT.

Its just...uno... the vibe.

Not the sort of thing u want to become habit....but farrrrrrrrrrkem

 

[*Danni*]

There was also something mentioned by Nick Holland on SEN about the Lions could have got Mal to sign a stipulation that in ending his contract 12 months early that he would agree not to play for another AFL club. They chose not to do this either and since when are people not allowed to change their minds.

I'm not absolving the Lions in any way here. You have to take into account that 'retirement' means they are retiring. Not going on holiday for a few weeks then playing somewhere else. Why would a clause like that be needed if someone has 'retired'?

Personally I think a clause like that should have been standard and I'm surprised it wasn't, but I can see also why it could so easily have been deemed not necessary, or not even thought about at all.

 

[ExTasDeeMan]

In other news

Recently retired Demon Alistair Nicholson is gathering interest from many clubs after the Brisbane Lions Full Back Mal Michael (who had also recently retired), signed with Essendon.

More news to come...

 

[Wooshavich]

act how?

What do you suggest they should have done?

Blocked Michael from playing? Think about it. Do you know what restraint of trade means? That would be a MUCH stronger legal position and issue than the current one, and WOULD have a good chance of succeeding. Against the AFL.

You need rules and reasoning to make decisions like that.

Well, that's one way you can spin it. Another way you can spin it is that this is not dissimilar to insider trading. Highly illegal outside the AFL, and would be detrimental to teh AFL.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Essendon sign Mal Michaels

i dont think it would happen, sheedy would of tried but surely the afl will jump in and stop this, it is clearly not fair to a club (brisbane) who have given him so much. If he does this he is a disgrace and so is the AFL for having allowed it

Oh pulease "not fair" to Brisbane ? When they were winning flags buffeted by a huge salary cap advantage over the rest of us was that "fair ?"
You bet your a--e it wasn't. But did that worry Brisbane ? Not on your life.
Now they are under siege through so many players retiring this season, and they're feeling the pressure, and it's a different story.
What goes around, comes around, Lions.

 

[Longy413]

Remember James Davies. Draft watchers will remember how Essendon attempted to rort the system to get the Melbourne High School boy and scare every other side off.

You mean the bloke that everyone knew about, and was even on most phantom drafts including the one on the AFL website and the AFL cleared Essendon of any wrong doing?

 

[*Danni*]

Re: Essendon sign Mal Michaels

Oh pulease "not fair" to Brisbane ? When they were winning flags buffeted by a huge salary cap advantage over the rest of us was that "fair ?"
You bet your a--e it wasn't. But did that worry Brisbane ? Not on your life.
Now they are under siege through so many players retiring this season, and they're feeling the pressure, and it's a different story.
What goes around, comes around, Lions.

Take your 2001 Loss glasses off and look at this as a competition issue, not a Brisbane issue. Because that is what it really is, it just so happens that is Brisbane involved in the first case of it.

It could so very easily happen to your club, or any club. It's the rules, or lack of explicit rules that are the issue here.

Even if a contract with the club excluded this situation upon retirement, it could be easily argued that without explicit legislation in the AFL player rules prohibitting it (not even saying yeah it's ok, or nothing at all, but actually saying no you can't do it), there is every chance individual club contracts and contract dissolution agreements including a 'can't play elsewhere' clause wouldn't be worth the paper they are typed on.

This may very well end up being Essendon's gain if the AFL sign off on it and the Lions are unsuccessful in blocking by legal means, and should that happen, pandora's box lid will have been blown off and into outer space and a free for all will begin in player mid-contract retirements and low placed ladder clubs picking them up in the PSD.

 

[Smokin]

It only won't be a precedent if the AFL sign off on it and dont' make preventative changes to their legislation. So in the absence of those of which we have no indication of happening at this stage, it is now a precedent. It has happened for the first time, without (at this stage) governing body veto. Unless those changes are made immediately, other clubs now have the ability to do the same (as of right now - and you do have to wonder if any are thinking of it after this announcment) it's a precedent. It's a preceding event to what they are wanting to do that is right now not outside the legislation. It's a precedent.

You dont need AFL preventative changes because basic contract law can 100% protect you IF YOU WANT IT TO.

The only precedent being set here is that if you not under contract, you can sign another one!

WOW, startling revelation that one!

 

[Stargazer]

Remember James Davies. Draft watchers will remember how Essendon attempted to rort the system to get the Melbourne High School boy and scare every other side off.

They were successful in that they got James Davies at 17. Justice was served when they delisted him some years later after a handful of games.

I despise the lack of loyalty in players these days and Essendon and Michael have corrupted the system even further.

In the light of the actions of Michael, I dearly hope the nearest he gets to a football ground is the television in his lounge room.

Brisbane may not be a club players want to be at but for Michael to openly lie as he has shows just how many of today's players are mercenaries.

If Michael ever plays in a game against Brisbane, I hope Jonathon Brown meets him. even if Brown gets a few weeks it will be worth it.

Davies was at XAVIER College - and was not in great demand from other clubs - otherwise they would have taken him themselves. Get your facts right, do your homework.
PS Michael was weighing up similar offers from SEVERAL clubs - not just the Bombers. Essendon agreed to his terms - Leigh Matthews didn't.

 

[*Danni*]

You dont need AFL preventative changes because basic contract law can 100% protect you IF YOU WANT IT TO.

The only precedent being set here is that if you not under contract, you can sign another one!

WOW, startling revelation that one!

Why the sarcasm? I at no stage have been saying Michael shouldn't be doing this. I'm saying he shouldn't be allowed to. And not just him, it just so happens he is the 'test case' on this issue.

I have an awful lot of time for Mal. Always have had, always will, no matter what happens here, and that is partly because I don't belive he had malicious intent or schemed to get out of his Lions contract to find another contract with another club. I also have no maliciouness towards Essendon, they see a loophole and they have gone for it. So be it.

It's the loophole I'm taking issue with.

 

[Smokin]

Why the sarcasm? I at no stage have been saying Michael shouldn't be doing this. I'm saying he shouldn't be allowed to. And not just him, it just so happens he is the 'test case' on this issue.

I have an awful lot of time for Mal. Always have had, always will, no matter what happens here, and that is partly because I don't belive he had malicious intent or schemed to get out of his Lions contract to find another contract with another club. I also have no maliciouness towards Essendon, they see a loophole and they have gone for it. So be it.

It's the loophole I'm taking issue with.

It's not a loophole. Deed of Settlements happen every day!

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Brisbane may not be a club players want to be at but for Michael to openly lie as he has shows just how many of today's players are mercenaries.

And why do players have a mercenary attitude, hmm? Maybe because clubs will ruthlessly deal with them as they see fit when it's in the perceived interests of the club.

Just ask Dean Solomon.

 

[royals1922]

Unlike most people I recall the James Davies incident. If you want to go and have a look at the old press reports.

Essendon tried to bury Jamies Davies and then James Davies did not join in any testing of potential players and came out saying that he didn't want to play for anybody but Essendon etc. Not surprisingly clubs were a bit loathe to take him and he fell to Essendon. These days it would be called draft tampering.

I could also point to the numerous draft picks lost by Essendon for salary cap violations.

Essendon have pushed the envelope on so many occasions in relation to the draft that the Michael situation is only reflective of a manipulative plying player going to an equally manipulative club. A marriage made in hell.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Essendon sign Mal Michaels

Take your 2001 Loss glasses off and look at this as a competition issue, not a Brisbane issue. Because that is what it really is, it just so happens that is Brisbane involved in the first case of it.

It could so very easily happen to your club, or any club. It's the rules, or lack of explicit rules that are the issue here.

Even if a contract with the club excluded this situation upon retirement, it could be easily argued that without explicit legislation in the AFL player rules prohibitting it (not even saying yeah it's ok, or nothing at all, but actually saying no you can't do it), there is every chance individual club contracts and contract dissolution agreements including a 'can't play elsewhere' clause wouldn't be worth the paper they are typed on.

This may very well end up being Essendon's gain if the AFL sign off on it and the Lions are unsuccessful in blocking by legal means, and should that happen, pandora's box lid will have been blown off and into outer space and a free for all will begin in player mid-contract retirements and low placed ladder clubs picking them up in the PSD.

Thankyou for explaining that to me - I would never have thought that through for myself. IF there is a loop hole in any AFL rule it will be exploited.
Do you realise that the AFL rules for players changing clubs, the standard contracts they sign, would not stand up in court of law if legally scrutinised?
There have been far worse transgressions to AFL rules that were challenged in court than this. I seem to recall Lindsay Fox being successful doing it for
St Kilda, playing players who weren't cleared by the AFL to change clubs.
And Pandora's box, the universe as we know it, didn't collapse.
Moderator, get over yourself. We're all entitled to our opinions.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Unlike most people I recall the James Davies incident. If you want to go and have a look at the old press reports.

Essendon tried to bury Jamies Davies and then James Davies did not join in any testing of potential players and came out saying that he didn't want to play for anybody but Essendon etc. Not surprisingly clubs were a bit loathe to take him and he fell to Essendon. These days it would be called draft tampering.

I could also point to the numerous draft picks lost by Essendon for salary cap violations.

Essendon have pushed the envelope on so many occasions in relation to the draft that the Michael situation is only reflective of a manipulative plying player going to an equally manipulative club. A marriage made in hell.

If you're old enough to remember the James Davies incident, then you should also remember the salary cap amnesty, in which every club was absolved of the cheating that every club engaged in. Except for Essendon and Carlton who were too stupid to take advantage of the amnesty. Remember??

 

[bluechampion]

OUTrageous....

This is appalling.

 

[*Danni*]

It's not a loophole. Deed of Settlements happen every day!

Yes they do, governed by the law/legislation.


I would expect the AFL to act on this, if they don't, then the foundations of trading, delistings and retirements under AFL rules and the CBA are all invalid. There will be a way they can address this. Just because they have failed to do so until now doesn't make it right. It might make it allowable, but it doesn't make it right.

Like it or not - and mostly not on my part - my club seem to get their names in the papers for alot of 'firsts'. And this situation is not that far removed from the intravenous drip issue of a few years ago. It was breaking any laws. It wasn't contravening any 'can't do' legislation by the AFL. It was deemed to be 'not in the spirit', and I expect this issue to follow the same suit. Except of course in this case my club is not the instigator, more the reactor to the lack of legislation by the AFL.

 

[Wojee]

Should not be allowed.

 

[MarkT]

I would expect the AFL to act on this,

What can the AFL do Danni? Mal wanted out, Brisbane released him and now he changes his mind and Essendon take him. You can assume anything in between all of that but the AFL can’t do a thing unless it can prove it. If they just act on a sniff test and Essendon or Mal go to court they are gone. At the same time they might also lose their draft rules and possibly more.

if they don't, then the foundations of trading, delistings and retirements under AFL rules and the CBA are all invalid. There will be a way they can address this.

No the world will keep turning, the 2007 draft will still functions as always and not much will change. The thing that will end the world as we know it is someone winning a restraint of trade case.

 

[The Kipster]

Why the sarcasm? I at no stage have been saying Michael shouldn't be doing this. I'm saying he shouldn't be allowed to. And not just him, it just so happens he is the 'test case' on this issue.

I have an awful lot of time for Mal. Always have had, always will, no matter what happens here, and that is partly because I don't belive he had malicious intent or schemed to get out of his Lions contract to find another contract with another club. I also have no maliciouness towards Essendon, they see a loophole and they have gone for it. So be it.

It's the loophole I'm taking issue with.

Dont try and explain it Dan, the bummers always take the high ground morally.....never been done for cheating or under-hand deals

 

[*Danni*]

Re: Essendon sign Mal Michaels

Thankyou for explaining that to me - I would never have thought that through for myself. IF there is a loop hole in any AFL rule it will be exploited.
Do you realise that the AFL rules for players changing clubs, the standard contracts they sign, would not stand up in court of law if legally scrutinised?
There have been far worse transgressions to AFL rules that were challenged in court than this. I seem to recall Lindsay Fox being successful doing it for
St Kilda, playing players who weren't cleared by the AFL to change clubs.
And Pandora's box, the universe as we know it, didn't collapse.
Moderator, get over yourself. We're all entitled to our opinions.

Of course we are entitled to our own opinons, we are also entitled to respond to others and not accept them on face value just becasue 'you said so'. The convaluting of issues such as you did was unecessary and I responded in kind with my opinions on the issue at hand. Nothing to do with being a mod or any other such rot. Just addressing the issue/s at hand.

And yes I am aware, possibly more than you are, of the ins and outs of AFL contracts, and what it takes to negotiate and secure one. I've seen the process on many occassions with my own eyes. I've also witnessed and participated in the paperwork requirements for the contracts, listed players, delisted players, draft nominations and many other things to do with reporting requirements for the AFL.

What you are suggesting appears to be (and if not the case please clarify that), that the AFL legislation is completely worthless and they will only change it under threat of court action because their legislation is illegal? That sounds dodgy at best and I can't see how a mult-million dollar corporation could operate under those circumstances.

 

[*Danni*]

What can the AFL do Danni? Mal wanted out, Brisbane released him and now he changes his mind and Essendon take him. You can assume anything in between all of that but the AFL can’t do a thing unless it can prove it. If they just act on a sniff test and Essendon or Mal go to court they are gone. At the same time they might also lose their draft rules and possibly more.

I don't know what they can do MarkT, thats why I'm throwing these thoughts out there. So many are ready to say blue is blue and red is read because the media said so and every second person is a legislative/contract lawyer on this issue.

I'm trying to see it from as many angles as I can. As I said, for me, its not just about Michael and my club, it could happen to any of us and any of our clubs by the looks of it at present, and that isn't a good thing.

 

[still chasing amy]

I love this. For months us Bomber supporters have had to listen to garbage regarding our club concerning our future and our activities during trade week calling Sheeds senile etc.
When we finally show some aggression and do something that most other teams hadn't thought of doing we get called cheats and bullies.
Well, take your toys and run along.

 

[royals1922]

Lance Uppercut

Essendon were not too stupid to take advantage of an amnesty.

They and Carlton were too arrogant in thinking they would never be caught. The distinction is crucial.

 

[Shads]

Re: Essendon sign Mal Michaels

It just proves you a leopard doesn't change its spots - bummers will always cheat at every opportunity and when it comes crashing down they love to plead ignorant (much like Wet Toasts supporters) it is not good for football and I hope MM does a fet lock straight up and spends half his year on a training bike on the sidelines....just like plugger when he came out of retirement...

You know you really should get treatment for that ailment you have.