List Mgmt. Fremantle FC Contract List/Depth Chart

[Taylor]

Don't discount the possibility that the club extends Schultz by more than that year

 

[freo_leo29]

The contract had to be structured that way so that they could keep him on rookie list. Elevating him to the senior list would have required delisting either someone under contract or not re-signing a more important player. But rookie rules require elevation after 3 seasons, so they couldn't given him a 3 year contract as he'd already spent 1 year on the rookie list. Had to be two years (rookie) plus a trigger.

Maybe the trigger was a high number of games to protect the club, or — more likely, in my view, given there's no source, no "reportedly", or anything like that — this is just one of those speculative/non-news pieces dressed up as news for the sake of publishing "content", and Lachie has already hit the trigger but there won't be an announcement until after someone on the senior list has been delisted at season's end (Colyer?)

Nah I meant he had a 3 year deal at Hawks

Yeah it could protect the club but he had an offer elsewhere so it's weird he took such a large games trigger

He was named on the official AFL UFA list a couple weeks back so he hasn't hit the trigger yet, inside trading is the most trustworthy article put out there, they continually get things right.

 

[ignoramus]

I don't think it's that weird. Sentiment and non-work factors play at least some part in decision making. My feel is that Schultz loves the club, and if the pay offer was close enough to Hawthorn's he would've been very happy to continue at Freo.

He was named on the official AFL UFA list a couple weeks back so he hasn't hit the trigger yet.

I'd be very surprised if that's how a contract trigger works. He is not yet even close to completing his second year, so — trigger or no — there is no urgency to lock in terms of the third year.

In all likelihood both parties are happy to wait until later in the year with a view to making it a 2 or 3 year extension, rather than just the 1 year stipulated by the trigger. Indeed, he may well have hit the trigger last year, but with neither party being inclined to formalise the extension at that time.

With no new/extended contract formally in place, he would still be on the office UFA list.

 

[freo_leo29]

I don't think it's that weird. Sentiment and non-work factors play at least some part in decision making. My feel is that Schultz loves the club, and if the pay offer was close enough to Hawthorn's he would've been very happy to continue at Freo.


I'd be very surprised if that's how a contract trigger works. He is not yet even close to completing his second year, so — trigger or no — there is no urgency to lock in terms of the third year.

In all likelihood both parties are happy to wait until later in the year with a view to making it a 2 or 3 year extension, rather than just the 1 year stipulated by the trigger. Indeed, he may well have hit the trigger last year, but with neither party being inclined to formalise the extension at that time.

With no new/extended contract formally in place, he would still be on the office UFA list.

Nah, that's how it works

It was reported later that he was close to hitting his trigger


He will hit the trigger and that'll automatically sign him until end of 2024


Triggers are weird in AFL, there's a great Reddit thread on it somewhere but I'm on the train and cbf finding it

The jist is that neither player or club can opt out if a trigger is hit, so we (or shoota) can put off contract talks for another year

 

[Taylor]

I would hope there's talks on extending longer than a single trigger year but an extra one is good enough for now.

 

[Footskill]

Article about the recent breaking news from Sumich about Darcy & Ryan potentially leaving Freo and how the AFL may look at Americanizing the trade period.

This bit was funny

Sumich, who not-so-seamlessly morphs between outspoken analyst and wannabe-newsbreaker in Perth

TOM MORRIS: Inside the AFL's plan to 'Americanise' the trade period

Last week, dual West Coast premiership player Peter Sumich wrote an article in the West Australian suggesting Fremantle ruckman Sean Darcy was interested in…

www.theroar.com.au

 

[ignoramus]

Nah, that's how it works

It was reported later that he was close to hitting his trigger


He will hit the trigger and that'll automatically sign him until end of 2024


Triggers are weird in AFL, there's a great Reddit thread on it somewhere but I'm on the train and cbf finding it

The jist is that neither player or club can opt out if a trigger is hit, so we (or shoota) can put off contract talks for another year

You mean this one?



Interesting discussion, but I'm not sure we can extract from it a consensual account of how contract triggers would work, even assuming that the speculations offered by those who aren't inside the process have some substance. There's a couple of different options suggested.

Regardless, "neither" is singular and invokes the unilateral aspect that the OP was saying is disallowed by the CBA. Mutual termination and/or renegotiation of contacts would surely remain an option (on the proviso that all such renegotiation continues to respect the terms of the CBA). "Automatic" also doesn't really apply. Contracts aren't pieces of computer code: documents still need to be signed and filed; contract status and list changes still need to be reported through processes that are not instantaneous.

Do we know Schultz's current status re. rookie/senior? Can anyone recall if there's been any slip from Bell or whoever about Schultz having been upgraded? Probably an important detail given it looked to be the complication that prevented him from being offered a 3 year contract to begin with.

 

[freo_leo29]

You mean this one?



Interesting discussion, but I'm not sure we can extract from it a consensual account of how contract triggers would work, even assuming that the speculations offered by those who aren't inside the process have some substance. There's a couple of different options suggested.

Regardless, "neither" is singular and invokes the unilateral aspect that the OP was saying is disallowed by the CBA. Mutual termination and/or renegotiation of contacts would surely remain an option (on the proviso that all such renegotiation continues to respect the terms of the CBA). "Automatic" also doesn't really apply. Contracts aren't pieces of computer code: documents still need to be signed and filed; contract status and list changes still need to be reported through processes that are not instantaneous.

Do we know Schultz's current status re. rookie/senior? Can anyone recall if there's been any slip from Bell or whoever about Schultz having been upgraded? Probably an important detail given it looked to be the complication that prevented him from being offered a 3 year contract to begin with.

Yes that's the thread, and sorry I should've been clear but the consensus was that OP is wrong and the guy in the comments describes why


Schulz was upgraded ly iirc

 

[ignoramus]

the consensus was that OP is wrong and the guy in the comments describes why

Yeah, I get that. There's a couple of different options proposed by different people around how you can structure it so that the terms of extension (or not) are not unilaterally set. The surprising thing about the discussion is that the OP imagined contract triggers to operate otherwise. He based his understanding on US sports where one party can unilaterally extend the contract, which is something I find truly terrifying. I can't reconcile that with the basic idea of a contract or with the principles of democracy, and I'm flabbergasted that it's even possible. Then again, it's the US. Plus, I'm no jurist.

At any rate, just to clarify: I'm not making any strong claims about what has or has not happened. I'm just saying that there are other possibilities than the idea that Schultz hasn't hit the trigger yet, so it must be high. Contracts aren't computer programs. They are written terms of reference, and instruments that protect each party from exploitation by the other. The contract in and of itself doesn't do anything; the parties to the contract do things, and if one party deviates from the terms of the contract, the other party can — but does not have to — seek to have the terms of the contract enforced via the courts.

In reality, people deviate from the terms of contracts all the time, because the agreement itself is usually based on good relations between the parties and good will, and the deviations aren't perceived by the other party to be an abuse of that good will. In the AFL context, the better a player performs, the more value they have (to the club and to the "employment market"), and the more power they have both in informally defining the limits to those deviations and in formal negotiations.

So, I can see a situation in which Bell contacts Schultz's manager and says, "Lachie's hit his contract extension trigger, so shall we sit down and go over everything before informing ALF HQ". Schultz's manager replies, "Actually, Belly, Lachie feels he's been playing really well, better than we all expected, and he wants to hold off while he dedicates himself to improving even further". Bell: "Lachie's a highly valued player, and we're keen to get some certainty going forward". Manager: "Absolutely, and Lachie's just wanting to see if he can make himself even more valuable to the club". At this point, Bell can either chuck a tanty and threaten legal action, thereby undermining all good will and ensuring a now rock solid B22 player (who some have compared to Kozzy Pickett and even thrown into AA discussion) seriously considers leaving at the end of his enforced contract (Lachie's UFA; doesn't even need to go through the rigmarole of a trade), or he can say, "Sure, totally understandable. We don't have a lot of wiggle room in the salary cap next year, but Lachie's performance has matched and probably exceeded expectations. If he can improve even further, that's good for everyone, and we can look at what we can offer in terms of appropriate remuneration".

The next day, Lachie's manager is chatting with the Inside Trading journo, and because there's a lot of quid pro quo between player managers and journos, when the journo asks if he's got any tidbits he can run with, Lachie's manager says something close enough to the truth and what is already widely accepted as truth that it can function as news (note that the only new bit of info in the report is that Lachie is "closing in on reaching the trigger") but vague enough that it doesn't betray confidentiality or press the good will of the club by suggesting that Lachie's on the market.

Sorry — didn't mean to write a novel. Just to be clear: I have no idea what has actually happened. I'm just spitballing, and if I've got a point to make it's simply that so is everyone else.

 

[freo_leo29]

Yeah, I get that. There's a couple of different options proposed by different people around how you can structure it so that the terms of extension (or not) are not unilaterally set. The surprising thing about the discussion is that the OP imagined contract triggers to operate otherwise. He based his understanding on US sports where one party can unilaterally extend the contract, which is something I find truly terrifying. I can't reconcile that with the basic idea of a contract or with the principles of democracy, and I'm flabbergasted that it's even possible. Then again, it's the US. Plus, I'm no jurist.

At any rate, just to clarify: I'm not making any strong claims about what has or has not happened. I'm just saying that there are other possibilities than the idea that Schultz hasn't hit the trigger yet, so it must be high. Contracts aren't computer programs. They are written terms of reference, and instruments that protect each party from exploitation by the other. The contract in and of itself doesn't do anything; the parties to the contract do things, and if one party deviates from the terms of the contract, the other party can — but does not have to — seek to have the terms of the contract enforced via the courts.

In reality, people deviate from the terms of contracts all the time, because the agreement itself is usually based on good relations between the parties and good will, and the deviations aren't perceived by the other party to be an abuse of that good will. In the AFL context, the better a player performs, the more value they have (to the club and to the "employment market"), and the more power they have both in informally defining the limits to those deviations and in formal negotiations.

So, I can see a situation in which Bell contacts Schultz's manager and says, "Lachie's hit his contract extension trigger, so shall we sit down and go over everything before informing ALF HQ". Schultz's manager replies, "Actually, Belly, Lachie feels he's been playing really well, better than we all expected, and he wants to hold off while he dedicates himself to improving even further". Bell: "Lachie's a highly valued player, and we're keen to get some certainty going forward". Manager: "Absolutely, and Lachie's just wanting to see if he can make himself even more valuable to the club". At this point, Bell can either chuck a tanty and threaten legal action, thereby undermining all good will and ensuring a now rock solid B22 player (who some have compared to Kozzy Pickett and even thrown into AA discussion) seriously considers leaving at the end of his enforced contract (Lachie's UFA; doesn't even need to go through the rigmarole of a trade), or he can say, "Sure, totally understandable. We don't have a lot of wiggle room in the salary cap next year, but Lachie's performance has matched and probably exceeded expectations. If he can improve even further, that's good for everyone, and we can look at what we can offer in terms of appropriate remuneration".

The next day, Lachie's manager is chatting with the Inside Trading journo, and because there's a lot of quid pro quo between player managers and journos, when the journo asks if he's got any tidbits he can run with, Lachie's manager says something close enough to the truth and what is already widely accepted as truth that it can function as news (note that the only new bit of info in the report is that Lachie is "closing in on reaching the trigger") but vague enough that it doesn't betray confidentiality or press the good will of the club by suggesting that Lachie's on the market.

Sorry — didn't mean to write a novel. Just to be clear: I have no idea what has actually happened. I'm just spitballing, and if I've got a point to make it's simply that so is everyone else.

The problem I see with that is why hasn't anyone done this before? Triggers have been pretty common for years now, it doesn't seem like it's an option for Lachie to forgo the trigger, as was discussed in that Reddit thread

Basically I'm happy if Lachie hits the trigger and extends OR hits the trigger and renegotiated to extend longer OR hits the trigger and requests a trade where we get compensated for his output.

The thing I wouldn't be happy with is if he is somehow a DFA even though we have that contract there, it looks like this isn't possible, so everything should work out

 

[ignoramus]

The problem I see with that is why hasn't anyone done this before? Triggers have been pretty common for years now, it doesn't seem like it's an option for Lachie to forgo the trigger, as was discussed in that Reddit thread

Basically I'm happy if Lachie hits the trigger and extends OR hits the trigger and renegotiated to extend longer OR hits the trigger and requests a trade where we get compensated for his output.

The thing I wouldn't be happy with is if he is somehow a DFA even though we have that contract there, it looks like this isn't possible, so everything should work out

Yeah, from the bits of info we've got, it's really unlikely that Lachie is free at the end of the season, so it should be fine. He may well be looking to move (doubt it) but it seems very likely it would have to be via trade.

As for why it hasn't been done before, I'm guessing that it has been done before and plenty of times. It'd mostly be a question of how much leverage one party has to improve the terms of the deal in their favour. In this instance, Lachie exceeding expectations.

Details of contracts and of the negotiations that led up to them are shrouded in mystery, for privacy reasons if not also to protect corporate intel. The only specifics that are known are contract length and rookie/senior status, and even those aren't always loudly announced by clubs or invariably reported. Whatever other details that get out via journos have to be treated with some suspicion too, I think. If any details are being passed on by a manager, there's a decent chance its for a reason other than simply informing the public (quid quo pro for a journo; generating and leveraging interest from opposition clubs; PR management). Meanwhile, of course, hacks just make sh*t up, and every other news outlet repeats that info as fact via "reportedly".

That's not to say that it's all lies and spin. There are no doubt good journos and players/managers who are far less cynical and manipulative than Kim Hagdorn and Collin Young. But there's also enough ignorance and insincerity built into this space that every "fact" reported (especially dollar amounts) warrants being taken with anything between a teaspoon and a truckload of salt. Or I reckon, at least.

 

[Vintage]

So, Liam Henry the only key player not yet signed beyond this year?

 

[Taylor]

So, Liam Henry the only key player not yet signed beyond this year?

Sturt and Henry are the two with a best twenty three presence still unsigned for 2024 yes.

 

[Tonga Bob]

Hey Taylor looks like Kuek is signed until 2024.

Sebit Kuek injury update

Sebit Kuek is set for a long stint on the sidelines

www.fremantlefc.com.au

 

[Taylor]

Hey Taylor looks like Kuek is signed until 2024.

Sebit Kuek injury update

Sebit Kuek is set for a long stint on the sidelines

www.fremantlefc.com.au

Horrible news for him to have the ACL but if he has good support they will be telling him that his job for the next ten months is to become a bodybuilding beast and earn the contract extension by turning into a hulk through dedication to his body.

 

[pK75]

This is just my personal take, but with a lot of players coming out of contract at the end of next year, thought I’d put a priority of contract extension together based on list needs and players we’ve invested heavily in.
2024 contracted players - priority of extension.
Darcy
Sturt
Emmett
Davies
Stanley
Walker
Wagner
NOD
Knobel
Banfield
Hughes
Tabs
Reidy*
Williams*
Kuek
Corbett

* Reidy and Williams not shown as having 2024 contracts yet.

 

[theGav56]

This is just my personal take, but with a lot of players coming out of contract at the end of next year, thought I’d put a priority of contract extension together based on list needs and players we’ve invested heavily in.
2024 contracted players - priority of extension.
Darcy
Sturt
Emmett
Davies
Stanley
Walker
Wagner
NOD
Knobel
Banfield
Hughes
Tabs
Reidy*
Williams*
Kuek
Corbett

* Reidy and Williams not shown as having 2024 contracts yet.

Good list, but you missed Daylight who comes just after Darcy.

 

[The Pirate]

I noticed on Jeremy Sharp's wiki page it says he plays for Fremantle Football Club...is that confirmed ?

 

[freo_leo29]

I noticed on Jeremy Sharp's wiki page it says he plays for Fremantle Football Club...is that confirmed ?

Not but expect it confirmed on Monday


It's the worst kept secret in the AFL tho

 

[Tonga Bob]

Taylor if you would be so kind as to do the needful...

 

[pK75]

Updated…..
2024 contracted players - priority of extension.
Darcy


Daylight


Sturt
Emmett

Stanley
Wagner
NOD
Knobel
Banfield
Hughes
Tabs
Reidy
Williams
Jones
Kuek
Corbett

 

[JunglistPosse]

Don't discount the possibility that the club extends Schultz by more than that year

Cant see it happening

 

[King Huskii]

Cant see it happening

Too funny

 

[pK75]

Updated…..
2024 contracted players - priority of extension.
Darcy


Daylight


Sturt
Emmett

Stanley
Wagner
NOD
Knobel
Banfield
Hughes
Tabs
Reidy
Williams
Jones
Kuek
Corbett

Update: removed both Darcy and daylight.

Sturt
Emmett
Stanley
Wagner
NOD
Knobel
Banfield
Hughes
Tabs
Reidy
Williams
Jones
Kuek
Corbett

 

[bellie4pm]

Is it just me or is this the best list management the dockers have ever had?

Ok maybe one too many years to jom (and for me, walker). But the rest is a thing of beauty - just sign on brayshaw and clark to 2030 and the list manager can take a well deserved couple of years off (on full pay of course!