Essendon sign Mal Michael

[Wooshavich]

To be honest I can't belive AFL have allowed this. On the one hand nominating a price and a club is deemed prejudicial to the draft, yet on the other hand they allow this. I don't think Essendon have any case to answer, but Mal Michael has come out as one slimy and dishonest SOB. And while there are no specific rules against it atm I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see how this compromises the draft and what it is there for. It allows players to leave a club and doge the draft to get to another club leavinbg their original club with SFA.

 

[Bollox]

I dont like it.

smells.

 

[The Kipster]

To be honest I can't belive AFL have allowed this. On the one hand nominating a price and a club is deemed prejudicial to the draft, yet on the other hand they allow this. I don't think Essendon have any case to answer, but Mal Michael has come out as one slimy and dishonest SOB. And while there are no specific rules against it atm I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see how this compromises the draft and what it is there for. It allows players to leave a club and doge the draft to get to another club leavinbg their original club with SFA.

Correct Woosh it is a shame the bummer supporters can't even see that...it is not them but the system that is in jeopody..

 

[ant555]

There is no doubt that what Michael & Essendon have done is morally wrong. The question of whether or not it is legally wrong is another matter - one which I have no doubt the Lions will pursue.

Worst of all, it sets a dangerous precedent - one which the AFL will be keen to stamp out as it puts at risk the whole draft system.If it is determined that this move IS legal, then the AFL will have to close the loophole. They will just change the Laws of the game, so that any player who chooses to retire while still under contract is precluded from playing for any other team until that contract expires.This would mean that Essendon would be unable to draft him until the 2007 PSD.

The first area in bold is rubish as the clubs can stamp it out easily. What you have said in the second bolded area is how the clubs can act to prevent this from happening. If you read the whole thread here you can see the solution to the issue mentioned several times

 

[Smokin]

Still yet to hear? How about you think about it for yourself instead of waiting for someone to tell you? It's not just about Mal Michael, the Lions and Essendon and the AFL. It's about what precedent this sets for the future, and about 'what if it was your club', which by the looks of the situation with no "can't do it" explicit legislation on the books it could have happened to ANY club.

hardly a precedent, as it's so riddiculously easy to stop this simply makes a mockery of the Brisbane legal team/advice.

If anything, Essendon have done clubs a favour - a lesson in law if you like!

 

[Lance Uppercut]

To be honest I can't belive AFL have allowed this. On the one hand nominating a price and a club is deemed prejudicial to the draft, yet on the other hand they allow this. I don't think Essendon have any case to answer, but Mal Michael has come out as one slimy and dishonest SOB. And while there are no specific rules against it atm I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see how this compromises the draft and what it is there for. It allows players to leave a club and doge the draft to get to another club leavinbg their original club with SFA.

On the one hand you've said you can't believe the AFL have allowed it, and on the other you've admitted there's no rules against it at the moment! Do you see your problem?

Essendon supporters have been very fair minded about this IMO. If it was against the rules, and maybe they need to look at, it would be different. But Essendon are just doing the best for their club. As they should!

Correct Woosh it is a shame the bummer supporters can't even see that...

No. Incorrect. See above. Shame you can't see it

 

[campbell]

We are supposed to have the best legal minds in our CEO and Board members.oops.

 

[ant555]

Correct Woosh it is a shame the bummer supporters can't even see that...it is not them but the system that is in jeopody..

How is the system in jeopody? I can see the moral issues but because i choose to say their are two sides to the story i cant see them.
As for the system do you think all the clubs are not going to protect themselves from situations like this in the future?

 

[Longy413]

I dont like it.

smells.

I thought you wanted Essendon to be more aggressive?

 

[marcuz]

I do feel for the lions, if the shoe was on the other foot I’d be extremely pissed off. But to be fair to the bomber football department they would be derelict in their duties if they did not explore all options in improving our list. With our current dearth of quality tall defenders we'd stupid not to sign Mal if he was interested.

 

[Wooshavich]

The first area in bold is rubish as the clubs can stamp it out easily. What you have said in the second bolded area is how the clubs can act to prevent this from happening. If you read the whole thread here you can see the solution to the issue mentioned several times

Not entirely. If the player is at the end of his contract and performs this manouvre his original club is left with nothing when they would have rightly expected something via a trade.

 

[Jex]

Re: Essendon sign Mal Michaels

well done sheeds, another quick fix so you can get a contract extension

Better than the slow fix that Richmond have been working on since 1980

 

[ant555]

We are supposed to have the best legal minds in our CEO and Board members.oops.

Well given AFL clubs are a multi million dollar business yes there should be some good legal minds involved.
Lets face it however morally wrong it is/could be it could have easily have been prevented if the club had been on top of all the issues.

 

[*Danni*]

hardly a precedent, as it's so riddiculously easy to stop this simply makes a mockery of the Brisbane legal team/advice.

If anything, Essendon have done clubs a favour - a lesson in law if you like!

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.

And no use throwing the Lions mockery rot at me. I'm one of the few championing that same cause. The lack of forsight, not only by the Lions but by the AFL as well in the ability of the situation to arise astounds me.

I'm no AFL rules expert, I know more than some on this stuff, but no where near enough let alone all, and even I can see how easy it would have been to prevent. That's scary.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

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) .

only if a club releases a player from contract. If some clubs are thinking about doing this, you can bet every club is thinking that they won't release players from contracts.

It's a reasonably unique(ish) situation. The clubs have to put themselves in a situation where it can happen to them, and that is unlikely to happen now.

 

[Wooshavich]

On the one hand you've said you can't believe the AFL have allowed it, and on the other you've admitted there's no rules against it at the moment! Do you see your problem?

Essendon supporters have been very fair minded about this IMO. If it was against the rules, and maybe they need to look at, it would be different. But Essendon are just doing the best for their club. As they should!



No. Incorrect. See above. Shame you can't see it

The AFL can act if they choose to do so for the good of the game. All you need to do is look at the final outcome of the Fremantle St Kilda game at Launceston this year to see that. They could have blocked this if they wanted to but chose not to.

 

[ant555]

Not entirely. If the player is at the end of his contract and performs this manouvre his original club is left with nothing when they would have rightly expected something via a trade.

Yes but the player at the end of his contract can do it anyway as he doesnt have to sign another one. If he knows the club he want's to go to he doesnt have to allow the club to trade him and the clubs cant trade an uncontracted player if he doesnt want to be traded.

 

[_RT_]

Still yet to hear? How about you think about it for yourself instead of waiting for someone to tell you? It's not just about Mal Michael, the Lions and Essendon and the AFL. It's about what precedent this sets for the future, and about 'what if it was your club', which by the looks of the situation with no "can't do it" explicit legislation on the books it could have happened to ANY club.

My point is Michael went to the Lions and offered a compromise which would have kept him at the club, they declined that compromised and he may well have thought if they are not going to allow me the flexibilty to train part time so I can set up the foundation then I will not play.

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=retirements&spg=display&articleid=302016

That article shows that he went to Leigh and wanted to remain a Lion, they were the ones who would not deal and now have been left with nothing.

If they were so concerned about losing Mal for nothing then why did they not bother to say, 'We will try and look for another club for you than can accomodate your desire.' Instead of playing hard ball, they threatened Aker they would only take a deal that suited them, why not try and get a second round pick for Mal from one of the other 15 clubs.


A bit like a Bank manager crying about being robbed and then discovering he left the vault open, you have no-one to blame but yourself. So it goes for the Lions.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

The AFL can act if they choose to do so for the good of the game. All you need to do is look at the final outcome of the Fremantle St Kilda game at Launceston this year to see that. They could have blocked this if they wanted to but chose not to.

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.

 

[The Kipster]

How is the system in jeopody? I can see the moral issues but because i choose to say their are two sides to the story i cant see them.
As for the system do you think all the clubs are not going to protect themselves from situations like this in the future?

I think you answered it before ant555, it now means that the contracts will certainly have to be worded differently....it is a shame morally IMO

 

[The Kipster]

Re: Essendon sign Mal Michaels

Better than the slow fix that Richmond have been working on since 1980

kappow that hurts...

 

[*Danni*]

My point is Michael went to the Lions and offered a compromise which would have kept him at the club, they declined that compromised and he may well have thought if they are not going to allow me the flexibilty to train part time so I can set up the foundation then I will not play.

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=retirements&spg=display&articleid=302016

That article shows that he went to Leigh and wanted to remain a Lion, they were the ones who would not deal and now have been left with nothing.

If they were so concerned about losing Mal for nothing then why did they not bother to say, 'We will try and look for another club for you than can accomodate your desire.' Instead of playing hard ball, they threatened Aker they would only take a deal that suited them, why not try and get a second round pick for Mal from one of the other 15 clubs.


A bit like a Bank manager crying about being robbed and then discovering he left the vault open, you have no-one to blame but yourself. So it goes for the Lions.

They have been left with nothing. I agree. But, that is part and parcel of player retirements, all clubs know and accept this.

However, more to that unlike an inability or unwillingness to trade or re-negotiate a new contract, they have been left now also with their loss becoming a competitors gain under circumstances that are legislatively iffy.

THAT is the issue.

A player declines to be traded, so be it you know where you stand.
A player is delisted, so be it, he knows where he stands.
A player doesn't come to terms with the club on a new contract, both know where they stand.

A player retires mid-contract, you know where you stand. Or so we all thought. Now it appears that isn't the case. THIS is the issue.

 

[_RT_]

only if a club releases a player from contract. If some clubs are thinking about doing this, you can bet every club is thinking that they won't release players from contracts.

It's a reasonably unique(ish) situation. The clubs have to put themselves in a situation where it can happen to them, and that is unlikely to happen now.

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.

 

[The Kipster]

A bit like a Bank manager crying about being robbed and then discovering he left the vault open, you have no-one to blame but yourself. So it goes for the Lions.

I believe that Brisy offered him up for trade and he declined, so isn't that wrong that he tells them one thing and does something else?

 

[royals1922]

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.