Opinion Posts That Don't Deserve a Thread (Random Opinion or Questions)

[DST]

The AFL (Mike Fitzpatrick in particular) were so pissed off when he went to Sydney instead of their love child GWS, made it very clear to the Swans at the time. "Buddy's contract figures WILL be in your salary cap for the period of his contract no matter the circumstances in the future."
If Bud was run over by a bus tomorrow Fitzpatrick would have the biggest smile. We can only hope that he gets run over instead.

That is not entirely correct, if he fails to see out the deal because of form or if his body fails him due to wear and tear then yes his contract will be included for the remaining period.

However, the AFL has specific rules in place regarding circumstances where a player is killed or badly disabled due to an accident which allows for relief under the TPP.

There is absolutely no way the AFL would not allow for Sydney to be provided TPP relief if Buddy was hit by a bus and was never able to play again.

Oh and I agree with Fitzpatrick on this one, under the free agency rules they needed to ensure that there was no room to rort the system by loading up long term deals that were never going to be seen out by both parties.

 

[DST]

Because they had to have a contract that hawthorn wouldn't match......and at that time he wouldn't know when he'd retire. If he decides to retire early then neither party is harmed by negotiating it afresh as nil or $1 PY. If he goes right through of course the contract would be honoured but if he goes early then they simply renegotiate it for $1 PY. That way I can't see how afl could challenge it

There is no issue with the club or Buddy re-nogiating the contract to $1.00 if that is what they want to do.

Still doesn't change the fact that $1m will be included in the calculations for the TPP for that year.

 

[Tuco]

Sadly the Hawks are talking about seeking just that sort of TPP relief for Roughead.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

That is not entirely correct, if he fails to see out the deal because of form or if his body fails him due to wear and tear then yes his contract will be included for the remaining period.

However, the AFL has specific rules in place regarding circumstances where a player is killed or badly disabled due to an accident which allows for relief under the TPP.

There is absolutely no way the AFL would not allow for Sydney to be provided TPP relief if Buddy was hit by a bus and was never able to play again.

Oh and I agree with Fitzpatrick on this one, under the free agency rules they needed to ensure that there was no room to rort the system by loading up long term deals that were never going to be seen out by both parties.

Thanks for that input.

 

[DST]

Sadly the Hawks are talking about seeking just that sort of TPP relief for Roughead.

Yes very sad, the only other time I recall it being used was for Troy Broadbridge at Melbourne after he was killed in the Christmas Tsunami.

There has also been some cases where early retirement based on medical advice, allowed a club to bring forward payments for the final year of the contract into the current year (and use the balance of injury payments) to avoid TPP issues the next year. I think Fosdike or Crouch were under that situation.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

There is no issue with the club or Buddy re-nogiating the contract to $1.00 if that is what they want to do.

Still doesn't change the fact that $1m will be included in the calculations for the TPP for that year.

On what basis would the afl have the right to include amounts other than what is contracted between the parties? Doesn't make sense that they could.

 

[YorshireSwan]

On what basis would the afl have the right to include amounts other than what is contracted between the parties? Doesn't make sense that they could.

On the basis that the standard playing contract is a 3-way contract between the Player, the Club and the AFL.

 

[Lakeside Swan]

The AFL (Mike Fitzpatrick in particular) were so pissed off when he went to Sydney instead of their love child GWS, made it very clear to the Swans at the time. "Buddy's contract figures WILL be in your salary cap for the period of his contract no matter the circumstances in the future."
If Bud was run over by a bus tomorrow Fitzpatrick would have the biggest smile. We can only hope that he gets run over instead.

He did say that but he can't make up rules for us if those rules don't apply to everyone (trade ban aside). If other clubs can discount a retired players salary from the cap then we can too. Forcing one club only to include it in the cap surely would pose legal risks?

 

[Lakeside Swan]

Sadly the Hawks are talking about seeking just that sort of TPP relief for Roughead.

If that's the case then we should get it for AJ. Whats the difference between an illness and an injury?

 

[Lakeside Swan]

There is no issue with the club or Buddy re-nogiating the contract to $1.00 if that is what they want to do.

Still doesn't change the fact that $1m will be included in the calculations for the TPP for that year.

That couldn't be correct. We've heard of situations where numerous players have been willing to take a pay cut in order to recruit a big name player. If that was the case then renegotiating their agreements would be a waste of time.

 

[swansfan51]

If that's the case then we should get it for AJ. Whats the difference between an illness and an injury?

We've known about his situation for 4 years and chosen to retain him - fairly significant difference

 

[Angry Red Bull]

That couldn't be correct. We've heard of situations where numerous players have been willing to take a pay cut in order to recruit a big name player. If that was the case then renegotiating their agreements would be a waste of time.

I've never really looked closely enough at the rules to know how they treat all these things. My comments were simply based upon logic. Perhaps i should have a read...... Yeah I know .... Get a life!!!

 

[Angry Red Bull]

He did say that but he can't make up rules for us if those rules don't apply to everyone (trade ban aside). If other clubs can discount a retired players salary from the cap then we can too. Forcing one club only to include it in the cap surely would pose legal risks?

Yes and that comment and that approach together with the verbal abuse levied at our CEO was and is an utter disgrace. That Liam pickering had to keep it (the buddy deal) quiet because he knew that the legitimate deal would be scuttled is also a disgrace. Bias, cronyism and myopic thinking at it's worse. "We want a national competition" what rot....... They want a national competition so long as it doesn't shift the Victorian centric view that only Victorian teams can win the competition. We are elite because we have the best administration, the best coaches, list mgt, the best development and systems to support and nurture players than anyone. That gets up the Mexicans noses ( due apology to our southern members) and so they will do anything to undermine us. Look at Brisbane where it was and is now for example of what challenging Victorian centricity creates.

I despise stupidity bias and ignorance. They have all three in spades especially MF and Eddie the bigoted idiot. Pack of fools all.

The way to create national support away from league and to afl is on the back of success. I became a Swan supporter because of the success of the nineties team reaching the GF and have been ever since. Would I have had they never had any success? Hell no...would be watching league still. They need to embrace interstate success because it is the embryo from which a truly national identity will grow.

 

[doona]

If that's the case then we should get it for AJ. Whats the difference between an illness and an injury?

AJ is a work related injury. ie. He injured his knee playing for the swans and has had complication's since. Which a lot of players get injured playing AFL and it is a part of the game and part of the contracts.

Roughy has cancer. It is totally unrelated to him playing football.

We've known about his situation for 4 years and chosen to retain him - fairly significant difference

And this. We have retained him and payed his salary knowing that he would only be going through rehabilitation/surgery etc....

 

[MarkP]

Absolutely no issue with Roughhead relief for the Hawks IF he cannot play again or for a significant period of time of his remaining contract.

Ditto if Buddy gets knocked over by a car.

Really it is just common sense stuff and there should be little agonising over it. The AFL will undoubtedly tie themselves in SJW knots and stuff it up by over explaining it instead of just telling everyone to take a hike and the decision is simple.

 

[DST]

That couldn't be correct. We've heard of situations where numerous players have been willing to take a pay cut in order to recruit a big name player. If that was the case then renegotiating their agreements would be a waste of time.

We are not talking about general re-negotiations with existing players, a new standard player contract is signed and then adjusted accordingly for the TPP.

We are referring to a contract that was entered into with a free/restricted agent that the other club was able to match to retain that player. This type of contract has additional clauses to protect the integrity of the competition.

If we just allowed clubs to load up the salary or length of contract to remove the ability for the existing club to match the deal and then just turned around 3 years into a 6 year deal and allowed them to re-negotiate, it would lead to total anarchy in the AFL and the end of restricted/free agents.

 

[DST]

He did say that but he can't make up rules for us if those rules don't apply to everyone (trade ban aside). If other clubs can discount a retired players salary from the cap then we can too. Forcing one club only to include it in the cap surely would pose legal risks?

What legal risks? The AFL set's the rules and can do whatever they like in terms of what is counted and not counted in the TPP of the clubs to protect the integrity of their drafting rules.

And the rules around retirement for a player on a restricted/free agent contract are the same for every club.

Have people forgotten that a restricted/free agent contract has additional clauses over the standard AFL player contract?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

What legal risks? The AFL set's the rules and can do whatever they like in terms of what is counted and not counted in the TPP of the clubs to protect the integrity of their drafting rules.

And the rules around retirement for a player on a restricted/free agent contract are the same for every club.

Have people forgotten that a restricted/free agent contract has additional clauses over the standard AFL player contract?

That's not strictly correct. Any contract can have clauses which are unenforceable because they are unconscionable in their field of operation ie they provide an outcome inequitable to the parties. The afl even as participant to the contract would be so only to the extent of ensuring compliance with afl rules which would include TPP. The afls participation would, I suggest, be limited were they to try to interfere with ordinary financial dealings between parties (player and club) acting at arms length to each other.

The afl are already on extremely shaky ground because the whole concepts of drafts and TPP and it's various nuances are unreasonable restraints of trade which, if contested, would fail to be enforceable. There is clear precedent that supports this. Fortunately the afl, clubs and players voluntarily cooperative within this legally unenforceable framework simply because no one has ever challenged it's validity in legal context. That is why , as one example, when swans were slapped with the trade ban a SeniorCounsel came out saying you can't do that- same reason unenforceable and unconscionable

The afl THINK they have power and own the game and it's participants but the truth is that the whole edifice is one legal challenge away from disintegrating.

 

[YorshireSwan]

He did say that but he can't make up rules for us if those rules don't apply to everyone (trade ban aside). If other clubs can discount a retired players salary from the cap then we can too. Forcing one club only to include it in the cap surely would pose legal risks?

That's incorrect, it's a 3-way contract between the parties and any variation to that contract must be agreed to by ALL parties which is explicitly why the AFL told Sydney (and seeked assurances from the board that they understood ramifications) that they must be willing to execute the contract in its entirety with no variations as they would not agree to any.

 

[sataris]

That's incorrect, it's a 3-way contract between the parties and any variation to that contract must be agreed to by ALL parties which is explicitly why the AFL told Sydney (and seemed assurances from the board that they understood ramifications) that they must be willing to execute the contract in its entirety with no variations as they would not agree to any.

They would not agree at the time,

I doubt the board members of the AFL will be the same ones as the ones there now and their idiotic rage quit about L.Franking will have subsided by then.

 

[Lakeside Swan]

That's incorrect, it's a 3-way contract between the parties and any variation to that contract must be agreed to by ALL parties which is explicitly why the AFL told Sydney (and seemed assurances from the board that they understood ramifications) that they must be willing to execute the contract in its entirety with no variations as they would not agree to any.

Good point but doesn't that still mean that our Buddy contract has been treated differently? Did they do that for Tom Boyd?

 

[YorshireSwan]

That's not strictly correct. Any contract can have clauses which are unenforceable because they are unconscionable in their field of operation ie they provide an outcome inequitable to the parties. The afl even as participant to the contract would be so only to the extent of ensuring compliance with afl rules which would include TPP. The afls participation would, I suggest, be limited were they to try to interfere with ordinary financial dealings between parties (player and club) acting at arms length to each other.

The afl are already on extremely shaky ground because the whole concepts of drafts and TPP and it's various nuances are unreasonable restraints of trade which, if contested, would fail to be enforceable. There is clear precedent that supports this. Fortunately the afl, clubs and players voluntarily cooperative within this legally unenforceable framework simply because no one has ever challenged it's validity in legal context. That is why , as one example, when swans were slapped with the trade ban a SeniorCounsel came out saying you can't do that- same reason unenforceable and unconscionable

The afl THINK they have power and own the game and it's participants but the truth is that the whole edifice is one legal challenge away from disintegrating.

Actually you are in correct, the collective bargaining agreement between the AFL, Clubs and AFLPA (on behalf of players) sets a legally binding framework for the competition including draft, TPP etc. In addition, in relation to buddy's contract the AFL before it signed off on the contract made the Swans boards sign statutory declarations that they understood the ramifications of the contract terms and accepted them in their entirety without variation as the AFL would not be signatory to any variation.

 

[YorshireSwan]

Good point but doesn't that still mean that our Buddy contract has been treated differently? Did they do that for Tom Boyd?

I understand what you are saying and the emotion of it but it has zero impact on enforcement of the contract under commercial law IF the AFL choose to contest it. In this instance AFL hold all the cards, this is why they went to the extreme of seeking signed declarations from our board as officers of the club.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I understand what you are saying and the emotion of it but it has zero impact on enforcement of the contract under commercial law IF the AFL choose to contest it. In this instance AFL hold all the cards, this is why they went to the extreme of seeking signed declarations from our board as officers of the club.

Stat decs, cbas Etcetc Etcetc and whatever other legal documents you seek to execute are all window dressing that flow from what is unconscionable and unenforceable at the outset. If the Tpp is unreasonable and the draft too then ANYTHING you sign thereafter that seeks to ratify and reinforce it are likewise deficient unenforceable. The very reason they persist with all these documents layer upon layer is because they already know were it challenged it won't work.... The game is up

WHy? Because as a principle it is unreasonable and unconscionable to limit who i can be employed by and limit what I can be paid. Full stop.

if you don't believe me look up the law on the subject. Pretty clear.

 

[melbournehammer]

Stat decs, cbas Etcetc Etcetc and whatever other legal documents you seek to execute are all window dressing that flow from what is unconscionable and unenforceable at the outset. If the Tpp is unreasonable and the draft too then ANYTHING you sign thereafter that seeks to ratify and reinforce it are likewise deficient unenforceable. The very reason they persist with all these documents layer upon layer is because they already know were it challenged it won't work.... The game is up

WHy? Because as a principle it is unreasonable and unconscionable to limit who i can be employed by and limit what I can be paid. Full stop.

if you don't believe me look up the law on the subject. Pretty clear.

This is not strictly correct. The law governing restraints of trade is that they are contrary to law unless there is a reasonable reason for them - for lack of a better expression. The reasonable reason in the afl is the idea of competitive balance - that by having a salary cap and a draft each team has a more or less equal chance of winning a match or the league. The concept of competitive balance is what is behind tv rights - that every team has a chance of winning ensuring that not just diehards watch matches but everyone does.

The layers and layers around these things also give rise to further protections around the reasonableness of things - if the union has agreed through a collective bargaining agreement to certain restrictive covens ants but has done so with a whole lot of protections for the players then this gives further weight to the reasonableness of the convene ant. For those really interested see nordenfeldt doctrine