View Full Version : AFL to investigate
Its official.
The AFL will investigate whether the Dogs and Hawthorn Colluded to force Rawlings into the draft.
Dasher39
17 Oct 2003, 18:49
Just heard that on Ch 10 News, hopefully something comes from this, and they both get punished. It is obvious they have colluded, they better do something about it.
BigCat1
17 Oct 2003, 18:50
Sucked in.
Apparently if clubs colluded on this they are in trouble according to channel 10. Now let's have a good hard look at at. Pick 6 and Alvey for a guy that played Box Hill two's for the whole year :eek: :eek: . Nope definately no collusion there :rolleyes:
NorthBhoy
17 Oct 2003, 18:53
Unless the AFL can come up with some pretty hard evidence, neither can be touched IMO.
Everyone knows what went on though.
Strip the Bulldogs of pick #1 in the PSD.
True, but there is precedent as the courts have the ability to weigh each side of a deal to determine whether it was fair and just. Hence, if it isn't, then the contract may be void.
In this case, looking into these alligations, investigators would probably weight the sides of the deal and come to the decision that it was not equal value. This could then become the key evidence in any case against the two.
Probably won't happen, but it is definately possible to mount a case using precident.
GOALden Hawk
17 Oct 2003, 18:59
If you go through the rules of trading none have been broken.
Won't stop the AFL from making something up though.
So what!!!!
It's all within the rules. What one club decides to pay for a player is only the club's business. Maybe the Dogs value this Vaeale very highly. Maybe they assess him as a gun player.
The Bulldogs and Hawthorn don't deserve to get whacked. I am just surprised no one has thought of this scheme before. The draft has been going on now for 15 years. I think????
Well done Hawks and Bulldogs...
It is the forcing of Jade into the PSD that is the issue, not necessarily the trade itself.
If the trade was done and Rawlings wasn't in the draft then it was just a stupid trade.
HOWEVER, the fact that the two parties came to a decision that directly, or indirectly forced another party into a position that he didn't want to be in, forms a basis for a collusion case.
As I said, it probably won't happen and it is hard to prove, but there is actually enough there to make a case and if the AFL does want to make an example of this, as they will one way or another, don't be suprised if the case is made.
AndyLucimitis
17 Oct 2003, 19:09
Sorry, have I missed something ???
Don't the clubs have to submit their paperwork on these deals to ...THE AFL !!!
Who are the AFL going to investigate - themselves .. they let the deal go through !
KnaveyBlue
17 Oct 2003, 19:10
Since when have the AFL paid any attention to the notion of fair trading between clubs? The restrictions they put on us in this year are a flat breach of Fair Trade, yet now that two clubs start getting crafty about trades they're going to put their foot down and say "No, you can't do that, that's not fair." ???
With the example the AFL has set in regards to Fair Trade, is it any surprise the clubs are quite happy to try a few dodgy schemes?
But the Blues broke the Rules.
Does that mean that if you declare bankrupcy that you could sue for Restraint of Trade because you aren't allowed to open a business for 7 years?
BTW, the AFL made sure all the paperwork was completed and that the deals were legal, yes, but, like video charges, they have the right to reassess any deal if it potentially breaks any regulation or law.
this trade did not force rawlings into the pre-season draft.... hawthorn could have still traded him if they wanted, but that would have been a dogs act... imo i think hawthorn couldn't strike a deal with the kangaroos and hawthorn put this idea to the bulldogs... perhaps it should be reviewed...
what happened to the 1st 4 picks in the pre season draft being raffled between the bottom 4 clubs??? because doing that would stop this kind of draft trading...
so they forced him into the draft when he didnt want to go. wheres the problem? this is against which rule? im sure youll get belly and AFLPA complaining a bit, maybe alot, but wheres the rule to say you cant force a player into the draft? and whats the penalty for its breach?
superstar
17 Oct 2003, 19:25
Prove it.
Gunners Man
17 Oct 2003, 19:30
I don't see anything wrong with this, they all played by the rules set, they just used them to their advantage.
It is about time clubs weren't forced into a ransom situation of taking below market value for a player.
What is different in this to where the Saints took Lawrence from Brisbane a few years ago for a low draft pick when they were threatening to put him in the pre season draft? Then they took Brett Voss anyway?
Players need to know that a club that has nurtured them and paid them well deserve better than a ransom demand in trade week.
The playing field is evening up for mine;)
The Shev
17 Oct 2003, 20:01
Punish the Bulldogs, strip them of their number 1 PSD (and ND too ;)) and let Rawlings come to Melbourne!
:D
Reminds me of Malcolm Fraser appointing that independent Liberal senator to replace the Qld Labour senator that dies, instead of a Labour guy despite long-standing convention. It was legal, but unanimously seen as underhand. It gave the Libs the power to block supply and ultimately rooted Whitlam. Now, it wasn't unconstitutional at the time, but is now, since the constitution got amended to stop it happening again in future.
So, will the rules be changed, but no punishment be meted out?
I wonder which clubs would be behind a change to stop this happening in future? I'm guessing the Roos, Port, Collingwood and...?? :D
Crow-mosone
17 Oct 2003, 20:14
Originally posted by Moti
It is the forcing of Jade into the PSD that is the issue, not necessarily the trade itself.
If the trade was done and Rawlings wasn't in the draft then it was just a stupid trade.
HOWEVER, the fact that the two parties came to a decision that directly, or indirectly forced another party into a position that he didn't want to be in, forms a basis for a collusion case.
Disagree. under your terms any trade is a collusive interraction, where the player refuses. Carlton and port colluded to try and force Nick stevens to carlton. If he agrees, was he forced into accepting under duress? not going to happen.
In substance, Wb traded pick 6 for the right to snare rawlings, IF he nominates for the draft, and the price is within their cap. where does this right vest from? the rules of the draft, the fact that they own no.1, or from the fact that rawlings will be PART of the draft pool.
you need to look further ashore than your analysis in this case.
He also, still has the right to resign with Hawthorn, he has the right not to play, or he has the right to nominate for the pre-season draft.
no rules have been broken, but it is a highly creative deal.
He and his manager kept threatening to go in the PSD, now they will.
Babylove
17 Oct 2003, 20:23
The problem, aside from forcing Jade into the PSD, is that in a trade they have to get the players consent to do it, which means to do an actual trade in this case they need to get Jade Rawlings to agree to it. But by doing it this way the WB effectively traded for him without getting his consent for the trade, does that make sense.
It is at least morally wrong, and there may be legal/rule issues, I'm not sure.
But what ever happens look for rule changes and probably the lottery for the PSD order to come back next year if nothing else comes of this.
Personally, I hope that the AFL makes an example of these two clubs like they did Carlton. What they did was wrong, not the trade itself, but what they effectively did to Rawlings.
hurricane
17 Oct 2003, 20:27
Essentially Rawlings has been 'traded' to the WB, without his consent. The issue isn't being forced into the draft, it's being forced to the Bulldogs.
Creative use of the rules by the Hawks and the Dogs. The AFLPA will be up in arms, and I'd imagine we'll see a return of the lottery to the pre-season draft.
Crow-mosone
17 Oct 2003, 20:28
Originally posted by Babylove
The problem, aside from forcing Jade into the PSD, is that in a trade they have to get the players consent to do it, which means to do an actual trade in this case they need to get Jade Rawlings to agree to it. But by doing it this way the WB effectively traded for him without getting his consent for the trade, does that make sense.
wrong.
they have not removed any of rawlings choices, they are the same as when they entered the trading period.
Rawlings is not obliged to do anything, a certain of events is likely to happen, but his rights and obligations have not changed.
1jasonoz
17 Oct 2003, 20:34
they have not removed any of rawlings choices, they are the same as when they entered the trading period.
They why isn't he at his prefered club?
Crow-mosone
17 Oct 2003, 20:42
Originally posted by 1jasonoz
They why isn't he at his prefered club?
that was NEVER one of his choices.
surely you know that. he never had the right to dictate who he plays for.
ImCheatingToWin
17 Oct 2003, 20:51
Originally posted by superstar
Prove it.
The whole thing summed up to perfection is 2 words, any "investigation" will go no where, its just sour grapes by North supporters, not looking for an argument just happy Rawlings got what was coming to him after all the club had done in previous years and also in trying to accomidate him for the future, i have no sympathy at all for you Rawlings ROT at carlton or the doggies you got what you deserved.
And i dont know what the fuss is all about Veale will be a champion will win a couple of brownlows :D
Baron Baldrick
17 Oct 2003, 20:56
Originally posted by Crow-mosone
that was NEVER one of his choices.
surely you know that. he never had the right to dictate who he plays for.
Then why hasn't he consented to go to the Dogs?
Players can only be traded to clubs with their consent - as far as I know?
Baron Baldrick
17 Oct 2003, 20:58
Originally posted by ImCheatingToWin
The whole thing summed up to perfection is 2 words, any "investigation" will go no where, its just sour grapes by North supporters, not looking for an argument just happy Rawlings got what was coming to him after all the club had done in previous years and also in trying to accomidate him for the future, i have no sympathy at all for you Rawlings ROT at carlton or the doggies you got what you deserved.
And i dont know what the fuss is all about Veale will be a champion will win a couple of brownlows :D
Yep Jacobs - Huge compensation hey... and for an on-traded Pick 6 :o
ImCheatingToWin
17 Oct 2003, 21:00
we traded rawlings did we hmmmmmmm i must have missed the memo
nananana catman
17 Oct 2003, 21:06
dude your name says it all
no1bankteller
17 Oct 2003, 21:07
Originally posted by ImCheatingToWin
"investigation" = sour grapes
Absolutely!!!
WB gave up pick six for the right to pick him up in the National draft, Hawthorn accepted that instead of Geelong offer.
Well done WB stiff s##t Geelong...
By the way I support neither of the clubs and just trying to present what I see to be an objective viewpoint.
Baron Baldrick
17 Oct 2003, 21:08
Originally posted by ImCheatingToWin
we traded rawlings did we hmmmmmmm i must have missed the memo
Yep - Reading between the lines just like the whole trade.
Oh well positioned yourself real nice for next year hey..
This is the best thing to happen to the draft system. What is the AFL going to investigate? The whole system of drafting players is a "restraint of trade". That's what the AFL has set up. Just that now two very innovative club administrators have used the system to their advantage. What's Dimitrov going to investigate? Isn't he the one that removed the lottery system - for the bottom four clubs - and virtually invited clubs to be innovative and use the resources available to them?
How is the AFL going to prove collusion? The Bulldogs will say there is no guarantee that they are going to pick up Rawlings. He is one of many for consideration. Who knows what other players will come on the market between now and the pre season draft. For all we know Voss may be in the pre season trade because Brisbane forgot to register him before the due date.
The only guarantee out of this is that there will be an egg on face down at AFL headquarters. Especially the recently appointed incompetent Dimitrov.
Well-done Bullies. Congratulations Hawks.
BigCat1
17 Oct 2003, 21:22
Seeing the Bulldogs think they have done nothing wrong and are just trading to the letter of the law not the spirit of it, pehaps the AFL could as well. I was under the impression that to get the 2 million dollars handed to them each year in order for them to survive the Dogs had to work towards 92% of the salry cap.
I wonder if the Dogs could sqeeze Rawlings in if they were forced to pay 92% of the cap. Tough choice, Rawlings Vs The Clubs Survival ;) . Think about that Andy D.
scooter600x
17 Oct 2003, 22:07
Originally posted by BigCat1
Seeing the Bulldogs think they have done nothing wrong and are just trading to the letter of the law not the spirit of it, pehaps the AFL could as well. I was under the impression that to get the 2 million dollars handed to them each year in order for them to survive the Dogs had to work towards 92% of the salry cap.
The AFL had a bit of a problem - their babies, the Swannies, need a handout but are way over the 92.5%. Easy solution - ditch the rule.
scooter600x
17 Oct 2003, 22:09
This was posted by Westy_Boy on the Bulldogs site.
Originally posted by Westy_Boy
" Veale slipped under Scott Clayton's radar last year, but after having seen him against the Werribee reserves earlier in the season, we made him a priority target during the trade period. The Hawthorn recruiting manager's exceptional record in picking up elite talls with later picks was another factor taken into consideration.
Plenty of other draftees from last year are playing VFL reserves (our own William Minson who was taken at pick 19 spent the entire year there - we see Veale as an even more exciting prospect), and considering the relative strength of last year's draft compared to this years, we saw a first round selection as a fair price to pay. Pick 6 was a little earlier than we would have rathered, but given our draft position and the fact that (a) our other (early second round) picks had already been traded away, and (b) there was no way in the world that Hawthorn were going to trade a kid with that kind of potential away for pick 50, the only way we could secure Veale was to use Pick 6.
He's a very raw player, and we believe he has a massive upside, probably the biggest upside of any tall currently on an AFL list. A pick in that range may seem, or even indeed be a little over the odds now, but if Lachlan reaches his potential we have no doubt that this trade will be seen as exceptional value down the track"
The defense rests.
smells to me doggies trouble comimg your way ! bye first pick for you and the hawks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BigCat1
17 Oct 2003, 22:16
Originally posted by scooter600x
The AFL had a bit of a problem - their babies, the Swannies, need a handout but are way over the 92.5%. Easy solution - ditch the rule.
You wouldnt have a club scoot. When was the last time you posted a profit?
Originally posted by scooter600x
scooter600x.
That is pure gold :D
That is all that they have to say and there isn't anything the afl can do
carlos' roos
18 Oct 2003, 00:58
i can't wait until these rats are caught. Rawlings will get to the roos eventually because it is not moral what hawthorn and the bulldogs did. I don't know what the problem is maybe jealousy of the roos success in the last 10 years, who knows. all that is for sure is that rawlings won't play for the bullies or the hawks next year, he'd be hating them both with a passion by now
Borgsta
18 Oct 2003, 01:07
Originally posted by BigCat1
Seeing the Bulldogs think they have done nothing wrong and are just trading to the letter of the law not the spirit of it, pehaps the AFL could as well. I was under the impression that to get the 2 million dollars handed to them each year in order for them to survive the Dogs had to work towards 92% of the salry cap.
I wonder if the Dogs could sqeeze Rawlings in if they were forced to pay 92% of the cap. Tough choice, Rawlings Vs The Clubs Survival ;) . Think about that Andy D.
The problem with that though BigCat is that the AFL told the Bulldogs that they can operate at 100% of the cap next year.
Originally posted by carlos' roos
i can't wait until these rats are caught. Rawlings will get to the roos eventually because it is not moral what hawthorn and the bulldogs did. I don't know what the problem is maybe jealousy of the roos success in the last 10 years, who knows. all that is for sure is that rawlings won't play for the bullies or the hawks next year, he'd be hating them both with a passion by now
get caught for what exactly?
carlos' roos
18 Oct 2003, 01:13
Originally posted by feher
get caught for what exactly?
for crapping over another club and afl rules.
How can a hawthorn official justify what they got when we were offering pick 9 compared to pick 6 and a player (all of our players are 15 times better than veale) and hawthorn not accept. Obviously you didn't want rawlings to be a roo out of spite. The afl aren't dumb, hawthorn will pay, restraint of trade is a nice name for what has happened. It should be called something a lot worse.
Originally posted by carlos' roos
for crapping over another club and afl rules.
How can a hawthorn official justify what they got when we were offering pick 9 compared to pick 6 and a player (all of our players are 15 times better than veale) and hawthorn not accept. Obviously you didn't want rawlings to be a roo out of spite. The afl aren't dumb, hawthorn will pay, restraint of trade is a nice name for what has happened. It should be called something a lot worse.
firstly i will say what the hawks have done is extremely dangerous and may end up being stupid. I would have traded with the roos but i don't have a say, none the less ...
we did nothing wrong, the bullies did nothing wrong.
We offered the bullies veale, the bullies offered pick 6, veale said yes to the move, its done
or
The bullies offered us pick 6, we offered veale, veale said yes to the move, its done
What can the afl do? the player agreed to the move? the bullies and hawks agreed to the value of pick 6, how can the afl say veale isn't worth pick 6? does the afl control what the hawks and bullies can trade and not trade? does the afl control the fairness of the deals? no they don't.
It just happens that rawlings doens't want to resign with us nor could we come up with a fair trade, so he will end up in the psd and likely the bullies, pure coesience.
stmookeyj
18 Oct 2003, 01:19
Originally posted by carlos' roos
for crapping over another club and afl rules.
How can a hawthorn official justify what they got when we were offering pick 9 compared to pick 6 and a player (all of our players are 15 times better than veale) and hawthorn not accept. Obviously you didn't want rawlings to be a roo out of spite. The afl aren't dumb, hawthorn will pay, restraint of trade is a nice name for what has happened. It should be called something a lot worse.
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. Hold it right there.
The point was HAWTHORN did not accept the trade from the roos, not the DOGS. And yes, the AFL have already proven that they are dumb given the punishment handed to Essendon and the TPP breach.
BTW, I bet Essendon are laughing now given that THEY now have pick 6 and a mid range (list) player.
:D ....sums up essendon's mood after trade week...thank you bulldogs.
BTW the AFL will investigate and find nothing. They cant prove anything the hawks and dogs wont admit to..it will all be huff and puff
It isn't Restraint of Trade.
This is what they should be picked up on:
Breach of Trade Rule - two teams working together to ensure a player goes somewhere of their choosing without the players consent.
Trade laws say that you cannot trade a player without his signature.
They got around this with the deal done.
However, if this was a decision based in the business world, the deal would be considered a direct trade despite the indirect nature and still be considered a breach.
BUT, the AFL will not go through with it as it would almost certainly be challenged in court and thus cost money and time and the AFL don't want to do it.
The common law has been developed to ensure deals such as this are not common place in society. So technically, they could be busted for it if it was to be pursued to the n'th degree.
But sadly it won't, but at least it will ensure that next year it will not occur.
Originally posted by Moti
But sadly it won't, but at least it will ensure that next year it will not occur.
tell me what the afl is going to do exactly to stop this? even if they come up with something, there will always be loop holes and unfair trades.
Trade laws say that you cannot trade a player without his signature
exactly, we didn't trade him to the bullies so nothing wrong was done.
Unwritten_Law
18 Oct 2003, 02:18
It all makes sense now.
I present Exhibit A your honour - Pick 20 for Street. We did not collude, we are just ****ing retarded.
nightcrawler
18 Oct 2003, 02:22
The problem is the assumption that a player has a god given right to determine where he ends up. It's faulty, he can only determine where he gets traded. As Port has just melodramatically proved, the club always has the option to refuse to trade and put the player into the pre-season draft. And since it can't be proved that the Hawks wouldn't have done this anyway if the Bulldogs hadn't have offered their pick, I can't see how anything will come of an investigation.
The Hawks MIGHT have taken whatever offer the Roos or Geelong had on the table ... or they may have refused to have been ransomed by a player the way Port did.
Originally posted by Kimbo
Reminds me of Malcolm Fraser appointing that independent Liberal senator to replace the Qld Labour senator that dies, instead of a Labour guy despite long-standing convention. It was legal, but unanimously seen as underhand. It gave the Libs the power to block supply and ultimately rooted Whitlam. Now, it wasn't unconstitutional at the time, but is now, since the constitution got amended to stop it happening again in future.
So, will the rules be changed, but no punishment be meted out?
I wonder which clubs would be behind a change to stop this happening in future? I'm guessing the Roos, Port, Collingwood and...?? :D
It wasn't Fraser who appointed Albert Patrick Field, it was Joh Bjelke-Petersen. In any case, Fraser is guilty of exploiting that unfair advantage. The difference here, is that the AFL has tremendous power over the drafting system. I expect, and further, I demand that action be taken.
Jim Boy
18 Oct 2003, 02:50
There are two problems with the deal. 1/. Only players and draft picks can be involved in any deal, and 2/. Players must consent to be involved in any deal.
On the first issue, it is pretty clear that the Veale deal was certainly not a fair trade on its own and that more was involved. This is evidenced in The Age (http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364488946.html) today where
"Hawthorn's recruiting man, John Turnbull, rang to explain he (Veale) could be in the mix for the deal between the Hawks and Western Bulldogs over Jade Rawlings".
On the second issue, given that it's been established that Rawlings was part of the deal, then Rawlings must give permission, which he didn't.
Then you also take into account that an AFL decision would be made on the balance on probabilities, rather than on a guilty until proven innocent. It doesn't look good for this deal going through.
Given that Hawthorn ontraded the illgotten pick, it will undoubtedly get very messy.
Thanks Hawthorn and WB for dragging footy into the mud again.
stmookeyj
18 Oct 2003, 02:53
Originally posted by Jim Boy
There are two problems with the deal. 1/. Only players and draft picks can be involved in any deal, and 2/. Players must consent to be involved in any deal.
On the first issue, it is pretty clear that the Veale deal was certainly not a fair trade on its own and that more was involved. This is evidenced in The Age (http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364488946.html) today where
"Hawthorn's recruiting man, John Turnbull, rang to explain he (Veale) could be in the mix for the deal between the Hawks and Western Bulldogs over Jade Rawlings".
On the second issue, given that it's been established that Rawlings was part of the deal, then Rawlings must give permission, which he didn't.
Then you also take into account that an AFL decision would be made on the balance on probabilities, rather than on a guilty until proven innocent. It doesn't look good for this deal going through.
Given that Hawthorn ontraded the illgotten pick, it will undoubtedly get very messy.
Thanks Hawthorn and WB for dragging footy into the mud again.
Since when was Rawlings involved, apart from the aftermath? The trade involved only players and picks (Jacobs, Veale, Alvey, Pick 6). Rawlings WAS NOT PART OF THE DEAL at any stage, otherwise the AFL would not have allowed this in the first place.
Finally, I know Mr Sheahan is not trusted, but here are his thoughts:
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,7590848%255E19742,00.html
Jim Boy
18 Oct 2003, 03:04
Originally posted by stmookeyj
Since when was Rawlings involved, apart from the aftermath? The trade involved only players and picks (Jacobs, Veale, Alvey, Pick 6). Rawlings WAS NOT PART OF THE DEAL at any stage, otherwise the AFL would not have allowed this in the first place.
Read the quote, Turnbull told Veale about the deal to send Rawlings to the WB. That the Hawks and WB didn't bother informing the AFL doesn't mean no deal exists. When the recruiting manager of Hawthorn says there is a deal, then there is a deal.
Fact: There was a deal. John Turnbull has admitted it.
BigCat1
18 Oct 2003, 03:04
Originally posted by stmookeyj
Since when was Rawlings involved, apart from the aftermath? The trade involved only players and picks (Jacobs, Veale, Alvey, Pick 6). Rawlings WAS NOT PART OF THE DEAL at any stage, otherwise the AFL would not have allowed this in the first place.
If your serious you should ban yourself from this board. I'm serious you are a tool. Yep the deal was 100% legit. Read the Age. Veale was the worst player on the Hawks list and they needed a player to get the deal done. You just can't trade draft picks. So off he went.
utility
18 Oct 2003, 03:20
I don't see any action being taken against the Hawks and Bulldogs, even if the AFL does decide to investigate, as any serious action would require legal action which the AFL will avoid at all costs.
It does however have serious ramifications for the draft and player movement. The AFL will seriously look at reintroducing the lottery for the pre-season draft again. But what is more of a worry is a fact that the AFLPA will be angered, and this may be the first step towards free agency (which the AFL do NOT want).
Unless the AFL do take significant action over this affair, the AFLPA will play hard ball with free agency and out-of-contract player movement come negotiations for the next CBA. The irony is that the Bulldogs would be worst off if there was free agency.
Jim Boy
18 Oct 2003, 04:09
The problem is that if the AFL doesn't hold up it's end then that open's a pandora box. The principle of allowing dodgy trades to go through because the paperwork is ok is absurd. Is there really any difference between the Veale case and a case where team x buys a star from team y with a million dollars and to make it 'legit' also chucks in pick 195 so that the paperwork has got the i's dotted and the t's crossed???
londontiger
18 Oct 2003, 04:16
Rawlings could also ask for a huge salary for 1 year, which would put him out of reach of the doggies.
Originally posted by stmookeyj
Since when was Rawlings involved, apart from the aftermath? The trade involved only players and picks (Jacobs, Veale, Alvey, Pick 6). Rawlings WAS NOT PART OF THE DEAL at any stage, otherwise the AFL would not have allowed this in the first place.
[/URL]
Originally posted by feher
Trade laws say that you cannot trade a player without his signature
exactly, we didn't trade him to the bullies so nothing wrong was done.
This is where the confusion lies.
You two gentlemen are from is known as the LITERALIST school of legal thought. You say "Here, THESE are the players we traded, Rawlings isn't one of them, and if the consequence of our actions HAPPENS to be that he ends up at the Bulldogs, well that's all well and good but we didn't have anything to do with it"
Unfortunately, that's not how the law works (nor should it) The Law will look at the effect of the contract and the true nature of the promise made. You don't need to sign a piece of paper to bring a contract into existence.
You can't say to me verbally "You paint my fence and I'll pay you $1,000", then when I finish and ask for the money say to me "What? We didn't sign any contract! I don't see any paper" There is still a contract.
Similarly here, just because Rawlings wasn't "part of the trade" doesn't mean that he wasn't "part of the trade" on any reasonable reading of the facts.
My guy feeling is that he will still end up at the Doggies. But this could blow up into a huge issue if the AFL wants to pursue it...
bLuEMoOsE
18 Oct 2003, 10:09
I dont know if this has been raised but rawlings also has the choice to Retire, therefore he doesnt have to go into the PSD?
dont know if it would hold up in court but hey.
Originally posted by Jim Boy
"Hawthorn's recruiting man, John Turnbull, rang to explain he (Veale) could be in the mix for the deal between the Hawks and Western Bulldogs over Jade Rawlings".
On the second issue, given that it's been established that Rawlings was part of the deal, then Rawlings must give permission, which he didn't.
yes it says that, but it doesn't say it was pick 6 for veale and rawlings does it? it could have being:
giving up:
bullies: pick 6, b. johnson (e.g.)
hawks: veale, rawlings
therefore it was a legit trade, prove where the deal was:
bullies: pick 6
hawks: rawlings, veale
Originally posted by bLuEMoOsE
I dont know if this has been raised but rawlings also has the choice to Retire, therefore he doesnt have to go into the PSD?
dont know if it would hold up in court but hey.
would you give up $$$$$??? he won't retire
bLuEMoOsE
18 Oct 2003, 10:52
i know he wont but it is a legitimate option therefore he was not forced into the draft.
1jasonoz
18 Oct 2003, 11:06
Originally posted by feher
yes it says that, but it doesn't say it was pick 6 for veale and rawlings does it? it could have being:
giving up:
bullies: pick 6, b. johnson (e.g.)
hawks: veale, rawlings
therefore it was a legit trade, prove where the deal was:
bullies: pick 6
hawks: rawlings, veale
Well pretty easy when your own recruiting manager comes out and states after the trading period that the WB was the Hawks preferred team to trade with regarding Jade, but the only way they could get him there, was by doing this trade i.e 6 for a nothing player, so they could pick him up in the preseason draft.
Originally posted by 1jasonoz
Well pretty easy when your own recruiting manager comes out and states after the trading period that the WB was the Hawks preferred team to trade with regarding Jade, but the only way they could get him there, was by doing this trade i.e 6 for a nothing player, so they could pick him up in the preseason draft.
untill psd starts this is pure speculation ;) and then its pure consience (sorry spelling)
we don't truely know what the deal involving rawlings was, maybe pick 6 for veale was the best offer dogs could get, as the dogs were desperate to unload that pick, there are plenty of legit reasons, and this trade was completely legit.
1jasonoz
18 Oct 2003, 11:18
Originally posted by feher
untill psd starts this is pure speculation ;) and then its pure consience (sorry spelling)
we don't truely know what the deal involving rawlings was, maybe pick 6 for veale was the best offer dogs could get, as the dogs were desperate to unload that pick, there are plenty of legit reasons, and this trade was completely legit.
Read the quote, its not speculation, the Hawks recruiting manager admitted that they did this deal to get Jade to the WB. He said it on tv. He has admitted that they did the deal to send Jade to the Doggies via the preseason draft, end of story.
Moo://_Cow
18 Oct 2003, 11:37
Geelong offered Hawthorn their first and second round pick for Rawlings when they found out no deal could be struck with the kangaroos, a little stupid not to take it?:confused:
Originally posted by 1jasonoz
Read the quote, its not speculation, the Hawks recruiting manager admitted that they did this deal to get Jade to the WB. He said it on tv. He has admitted that they did the deal to send Jade to the Doggies via the preseason draft, end of story.
they really should shut there mouth on this, and if they are going to open it, they should build up veale.
At the end of the day the trade had nothing to do with rawlings, he will end up in the draft and the bulldogs can CHOOSE to take him if they wish, there is nothing stopping them from taking someone else. Hawthorn doesn't have to trade with anyone they don't want to, they can trade what/who they want for who/what they want. It is not upto the afl to open there mouths on what is a fair trade ... hell there is no such thing as a fair trade.
Originally posted by Moo://_Cow
Geelong offered Hawthorn their first and second round pick for Rawlings when they found out no deal could be struck with the kangaroos, a little stupid not to take it?:confused:
he probably didn't want to go there either, we got nothing for jade
1jasonoz
18 Oct 2003, 11:41
Originally posted by feher
they really should shut there mouth on this, and if they are going to open it, they should build up veale.
Exactly I couldn't beleive I heard him actually admitting what they had done!!! How stupid could they be.
Basically, there is a case to answer, as it doesn't matter what was written, but what was intended.
The question is whther the AFL have the balls to go through with the charge, something I very much doubt.
Originally posted by Moti
Basically, there is a case to answer, as it doesn't matter what was written, but what was intended.
The question is whther the AFL have the balls to go through with the charge, something I very much doubt.
show me the intent? hawthorn can still try and resign rawlings, the bulldogs don't have to draft him, no intent.