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

[DST]

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.

I don't disagree with you, however that is just pure speculation of what might happen if a player or club wanted to legally challenge the current rules of the competition.

The fact is there are rules in place to ensure the integrity of the restricted/free agent process and those rules are applicable to all clubs.

There is no way the AFL will allow a change to the TPP reportable amount for a restricted/free agent player half way into or at the back end of the contract.

 

[Superstar swan]

considering since buddys arrival we have re signed, k jack, hanners, parker, aliir, smith, mcveigh, jones, xr, rohan, grundy ,tippett, naismith,rose, hewett, papley and mcveigh (all off the top of my head), id say the impact has been minimal.

Sensational work by the club

 

[Superstar swan]

towers deserves a 2 year deal

 

[Angry Red Bull]

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

In an article in the aust and nz sports law journal of 2006, j Davies lecturer at law james cook university postulated in analysis applying the 3 elements of the norfenfeldt doctrine to the afl restrictions as they then applied. His conclusion was that:

1) it wasn't injurious to the public
2 it was in the interests of the league
3) the capacity to trade a player without his consent was unreasonable

The conclusion drawn was that because all three elements weren't satisfied that it may represent unreasonable restraint of trade.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

In an article in the aust and nz sports law journal of 2006, j Davies lecturer at law james cook university postulated in analysis applying the 3 elements of the norfenfeldt doctrine to the afl restrictions as they then applied. His conclusion was that:

1) it wasn't injurious to the public
2 it was in the interests of the league
3) the capacity to trade a player without his consent was unreasonable

The conclusion drawn was that because all three elements weren't satisfied that it may represent unreasonable restraint of trade.

The introduction of free agency changes has occurred in order to satisfy that players aren't unreasonably restricted and was a recommendation of his article

 

[kickthething]

50000 plus members say hello

 

[Troystenvic]

So if Buddy gets run over by Cyggy on his scooter and cant play would we get relief? Id hope so.

 

[Tuco]

Will be interesting to see 35 yo buddy's output compared to 25 yo boyds

Sure.

But I'd prefer not to pay a kid $6m to develop getting bugger all return and then probably just lose him to a team in a premiership window who can pick him up ready made.

 

[DST]

So if Buddy gets run over by Cyggy on his scooter and cant play would we get relief? Id hope so.

That is a very interesting question considering the bloke that actually ran over him works for the club.

Imagine the Bigfooty conspiricay theory collective go into melt down over that.

 

[sataris]

Sure.

But I'd prefer not to pay a kid $6m to develop getting bugger all return and then probably just lose him to a team in a premiership window who can pick him up ready made.

Boyd to Swans in 2022

 

[The King!]

If Buddy wins 0 flags with Sydney it will be a failure

 

[doona]

If Buddy wins 0 flags with Sydney it will be a failure

I think you mean if Sydney wins 0 flags. What if buddy is suspended/injured for a grand final that we win?

 

[The King!]

I think you mean if Sydney wins 0 flags. What if buddy is suspended/injured for a grand final that we win?

Good point

Depends , he probably needs to make a decent contribution to the year really

 

[doona]

Good point

Depends , he probably needs to make a decent contribution to the year really

I guess I was being a bit pedantic/an arseh*le.

But for example his contribution this year has been amazing. Worth the money.

But at the end of the day it is a team sport, and its about our flags, not individual players.

I agree, the contract requires flags (plural) for our club

 

[Lakeside Swan]

I think you mean if Sydney wins 0 flags. What if buddy is suspended/injured for a grand final that we win?

You've been quiet. Been busy?

 

[doona]

You've been quiet. Been busy?

I have actually missed the last 3 games. First time ever! Even when I lived in Finland for 4 years I didn't miss a game (granted I can miss social media posts over there).....

 

[Lakeside Swan]

I have actually missed the last 3 games. First time ever! Even when I lived in Finland for 4 years I didn't miss a game (granted I can miss social media posts over there).....

Oh well. You're here for the pointy end that's the important thing.

 

[The King!]

I have actually missed the last 3 games. First time ever! Even when I lived in Finland for 4 years I didn't miss a game (granted I can miss social media posts over there).....

STAY AWAY.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

I'd imagine if buddy injured himself out of footy the AFL would reverse their stance.

If we claimed buddy was suffering severe depression and could no longer play afl then I'd expect the AFL to be sceptical and stick to their guns.

 

[momentbymoment]

If Buddy wins 0 flags with Sydney it will be a failure

Not true.
Buddy is already a success and if we win a flag or 3, that will be the cream.

 

[momentbymoment]

I'd imagine if buddy injured himself out of footy the AFL would reverse their stance.

If we claimed buddy was suffering severe depression and could no longer play afl then I'd expect the AFL to be sceptical and stick to their guns.

I think Buddy has had his mini crisis. Moving clubs on big coin can whack a players confidence and the extra publicity and VFL tears certainly made this move challenging.

I believe he has met the challenge, moved through it and is ready to play awesome footy for the next 5 years.

Gotta love this club.

 

[The King!]

Not true.
Buddy is already a success and if we win a flag or 3, that will be the cream.

Buddy is an all time great

The contractual move is a separate issue in my view

 

[The King!]

I'd imagine if buddy injured himself out of footy the AFL would reverse their stance.

If we claimed buddy was suffering severe depression and could no longer play afl then I'd expect the AFL to be sceptical and stick to their guns.

According to the main board we are the AFL pets

So why worry

 

[Kirkswan]

So if Buddy gets run over by Cyggy on his scooter and cant play would we get relief? Id hope so.

That would depend on whether or not they were at work, or could be reasonably considered to be engaged in activities related to their employment. If it was a backyard bbq, then yes, we would get relief dependent on the length of time that buddy was out. However, if it was in any work related activity, then it would be workers comp and we would not be entitled to relief.

 

[Kirkswan]

Buddy is an all time great and his move to Sydney has already bought success imo, flag or no flag. Just as he can't win a flag on his own, he can't lose one on his own either. When deciding whether or not he has been a success, we need to take into consideration no just his impact on the field, but his impact on the training grounds, around the club, the players to drawn to Sydney for the chance to play along side him, they players who stay with him being part of the reason, the crowds he draws, the media commentary he generates in Sydney (an NRL town) and a host of other reasons. As someone who lives here, and in my humble opinion, the deal was brilliant! An absolute masterstroke which has and will continue to reap rewards.

With regard to the contract impact... we are the Sydney Swans! Our culture is our creed! We signed a contract and we will honour it. If I thought that we had knowing made a deal that we had intended to break right from the very beginning, or that at some point later we started looking for ways to shirk/break it, I would be devastated! If money get's tight and he is old and not playing well, TOUGH! We made a deal, we stick to it! I would think that the players, past and present, and the members would not allow something like this to happen, if our board ever so forgot itself to the extent that something like this was considered.