Mitch Thorp

[scooter600x]

You would think he will last into the 40's as Hawthorne tried to trade him but couldnt get a deal done. You would presume they werent offered anything in the 30's as their first pick is 39.

Hawthorn would have traded him for pick 100 if they had any brains.

If he can't find a club Hawthorn will be stuck with his $200K contract. By trading him they would have got relief from at least some of it.

 

[eldorado]

Hawthorn would have traded him for pick 100 if they had any brains.

If he can't find a club Hawthorn will be stuck with his $200K contract. By trading him they would have got relief from at least some of it.

If that was a consideration, we just would have kept him on the list.

 

[Demon 16]

Hawthorn would have traded him for pick 100 if they had any brains.

If he can't find a club Hawthorn will be stuck with his $200K contract. By trading him they would have got relief from at least some of it.

Good point - though if he gets picked up by another club, presumably his Hawthorn contract is automatically rescinded??

Perhaps they were confident that someone will give him a go with a late pick which looks likely at this point.

 

[Vader]

Good point - though if he gets picked up by another club, presumably his Hawthorn contract is automatically rescinded??

Perhaps they were confident that someone will give him a go with a late pick which looks likely at this point.

Fairly sure that it's up to his new club to negotiate a new contract with Thorp. Hawthorn would have to pay the difference between his new contract value and what he was due to receive under their old contract with him.

 

[THE_GUN]

Fairly sure that it's up to his new club to negotiate a new contract with Thorp. Hawthorn would have to pay the difference between his new contract value and what he was due to receive under their old contract with him.

dont know about that, hawthorn would have to pay out his existing contract unless they actually came to terms with thorp i should imagine & his new club and new contract wouldnt affect hawthorn.

in other words thorp could collect everything he is owed & collect the cash from the new club aswell.

your point would be correct if he was traded to another club but i doubt it would be correct now that hawthorn have delisted him.....

 

[Consumed]

dont know about that, hawthorn would have to pay out his existing contract unless they actually came to terms with thorp i should imagine & his new club and new contract wouldnt affect hawthorn.

in other words thorp could collect everything he is owed & collect the cash from the new club aswell.

your point would be correct if he was traded to another club but i doubt it would be correct now that hawthorn have delisted him.....

Ummm, no.

This isn't how it works, would be nice if you could double-dip, but the AFL doesn't allow it.

 

[Heisenberg_]

Hawks were playing hardball with everyone this trade week. I wouldn't be surprised if they knocked back semi-reasonable offers.

The Hawks are interested in Adam Pattison, so their was a suggestion of a straight swap for Thorp, Pelchen wanted us to throw in pick 19

 

[THE_GUN]

Ummm, no.

This isn't how it works, would be nice if you could double-dip, but the AFL doesn't allow it.

why would the afl restrict a player from setting a price on his head !!

if you are terminated from a job or retrenched you would still be allowed to earn what you are worth in your next job,

i would like to see where it is written or which rule states that you must earn less than what you are worth just because you have been delisted.

if you could show me why or where i would much apreciate it.

 

[Carnthe]

Has he been invited to train with anybody?

 

[Heisenberg_]

Ummm, no.

This isn't how it works, would be nice if you could double-dip, but the AFL doesn't allow it.

The Hawks cut him while he was still under contract so they would have paid out his contract for 2010 as a result, so if he is picked up by anybody he will be getting what he was owed from Hawthorn in 2010 on top of whatever he is paid by his new club.
That is exactly how it works unless he changed clubs during trade week which didn't happen

 

[Vader]

It's all covered under Section 12 of Schedule B in the AFLPA/AFL Collective Bargaining Agreement (page 89 of the document for anyone who cares to look it up).

In short, he doesn't get to double dip.

Specifically, Section 12.6 lays it all out in legalese & gobbledegook.

12.6 No Unjust Enrichment
Where an AFL Club employs a Player whose name has been delisted from the List of another AFL Club and where the terms of employment of such Player provide that the average of all payments which the Player would be entitled to earn over the whole of the period of the new contract is:
(a) the same or greater during the balance of the years in which the Player was delisted by his previous AFL Club or the year following his delisting (if the provisions of paragraphs 12.1(c) and 12.1(d) apply), no termination payment shall be payable; or
(b) less during the balance of the years in which the Player was delisted by his previous AFL Club or the year following his delisting, the termination payment payable shall be reduced by the average payments which the Player would be entitled to earn under his new contract for the balance of the years in which the Player was delisted and the year following his delisting (if the provisions of paragraphs 12.1(c) and 12.1(d) apply).
Accordingly:
(i) any amount payable by an AFL Club under paragraphs 12.1(c) and
12.1(d) shall not be payable until 31 March in the year following that in which the Player’s name was deleted from the relevant AFL Club’s List;
(ii) any payment by an AFL Club of any amount purportedly in accordance with paragraphs 12.1(c) and 12.1(d) shall be strictly without prejudice to the rights of the AFL Club under paragraph 12.6;
(iii) an AFL Club shall be entitled to be repaid any amount paid to a Player in excess of a Player’s actual entitlement; and
(iv) where a Player fails, refuses or neglects to repay any amount due to his former AFL Club in accordance with this sub-paragraph, within 7 days of a written demand for such payment, the AFL Club which has re-employed the player shall pay the amount due to the former AFL Club and the Player’s entitlement to payments under his new contract shall be reduced accordingly.

 

[Vader]

The Hawks cut him while he was still under contract so they would have paid out his contract for 2010 as a result, so if he is picked up by anybody he will be getting what he was owed from Hawthorn in 2010 on top of whatever he is paid by his new club.
That is exactly how it works unless he changed clubs during trade week which didn't happen

Umm.. no.

His new club agrees a contract with him for 2010 (and possibly beyond). They pay him the salary agreed to in that contract. Hawthorn pay any difference between that salary and that dictated by his previous contract with them.

It makes no difference how he arrives at his new club - be it via trade or through one of the drafts. As long as he is employed by another AFL club in 2010 Hawthorn will get some salary cap relief.

 

[Heisenberg_]

My bad, would have thought if his contract is terminated and payed out it would have no bearing on a new one.
My mistake

 

[mi_hrvati]

My bad, would have thought if his contract is terminated and payed out it would have no bearing on a new one.
My mistake

we all would have thought. i didnt know the afl had the power to overwrite law

 

[Demon 16]

we all would have thought. i didnt know the afl had the power to overwrite law

It reads as though an AFL Club is considered an entity of the AFL. In other words being employed by an AFL Club is effectively being employed by the AFL.

But you are right, it seems strange that they dont have to pay out the original employment contract if the player is made redundant and them re-employed in an entirely different capacity.

 

[Vader]

It reads as though an AFL Club is considered an entity of the AFL. In other words being employed by an AFL Club is effectively being employed by the AFL.

But you are right, it seems strange that they dont have to pay out the original employment contract if the player is made redundant and them re-employed in an entirely different capacity.

Put simply, the players are employed by the AFL - not by the clubs directly. It's also how the AFL gets around issues regarding the legality of the draft.

 

[Grimreepah]

Well I never knew that. Thanks for the info Vader.

 

[w00dy]

Put simply, the players are employed by the AFL - not by the clubs directly. It's also how the AFL gets around issues regarding the legality of the draft.

Surely that's how they avoid the restraint of trade issue too... Surely if the AFL employs the players, the AFL can tell the players where they have to "work" as a part of their contract. If they don't like the terms of this deal, then surely they have the choice to go work somewhere else, outside the AFL?

And Pickers just confirmed on SEN that Thorp will be training at the Dees starting Monday...

 

[demons2013]

And Pickers just confirmed on SEN that Thorp will be training at the Dees starting Monday...

Jolly good form Dees , can't hurt to have a look at him 1st hand if is body is right and if we find that he is not a total nob worth a punt in PSD , seeing Ball sure as hell aint coming

 

[WatWouldCyrilDo]

Jolly good form Dees , can't hurt to have a look at him 1st hand if is body is right and if we find that he is not a total nob worth a punt in PSD , seeing Ball sure as hell aint coming

He is a total knob, no doubts about it.

But at the end of the day, who cares if he lives up to his potential?

If he gets in the right frame of mind, stays injury free and is actually played in the forward line, he could be a very good player.

 

[Danog]

Scarlett is a knob, and look at what he's done. I hope Richmond invite him to train as well.

 

[Wokko]

Good Luck Melbourne, let's hope he doesn't end anybody elses career in the VFL. (lol, what a knob).

 

[Bring-Back-Powell]

Scarlett is a knob.

Yeah I've heard credible information that he's an average bloke at best.

Very happy the Dees are looking at someone now that the Luke Ball fantasy is off the table.

In a perfect world, he'd contribute his 3 goals a week and form a nice fwd line that includes Jurrah, Bate, Sylvia, Watts and Wonneamirri.

 

[melbournemartin]

If we get a good key position forward, perhaps even Butcher, in the national draft then perhaps Thorpe is less likely to come to Melbourne.

I wouldn't mind him though.

 

[Bay Pie]

Has he nominated for the ND?

I see nominations are due 18th Nov for delisted players but haven't read anywhere what players are nominating for the ND, outside of Luke Ball.