Mega Thread AFL: No Trades (READ OP)

[Millky95]

It is effective list management. Like having Lake take a pay cut to join you and Letting Franklin leave when offered overs. Ask the AFL for an enquiry if you think they're breaching the cap and there's a conspiracy.

Geez, calm down. I'm just thinking Dangerfield would command more money they would have, unless some players their are (happily I guess) getting paid unders.

 

[SilentHunter_]

It is effective list management. Like having Lake take a pay cut to join you and Letting Franklin leave when offered overs. Ask the AFL for an enquiry if you think they're breaching the cap and there's a conspiracy.

LOL it is not that, technically speaking we never breached our salary cap and got our trade ban handed to our asses because and I quote 'we can't have everything'... they might not be breaching the cap, but that's 2 years in a row where they grab they biggest FA (assuming they get dangerfield). Much like us. Nothing will happen though, Victorian club.

 

[YorshireSwan]

Didn't that money go to Frawley? And other players they've had to re-contract in that time? Seriously, some of their main players must be on peanuts.

They have some pretty serious $$ also coming available with imminent retirements of Hodge, Burgoyne and co. Only need to structure a backend load contract as we did with Buddy to get the deal done. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that they are active in the market they need to be.

 

[YorshireSwan]

LOL it is not that, technically speaking we never breached our salary cap and got our trade ban handed to our asses because and I quote 'we can't have everything'... they might not be breaching the cap, but that's 2 years in a row where they grab they biggest FA (assuming they get dangerfield). Much like us. Nothing will happen though, Victorian club.

Whilst I totally understand your point of view and not wanting to open the whole debate, right or wrong we technically speaking we had an additional allowance that was paid by the AFL at their total discretion, they decided to remove this allowance and we were given the option to immediately restructure all of our contracts with COLA included for business as usual or have a phased removal with trade restrictions imposed ... we chose the latter.

Hawthorn is all about good list management, no different to us with Buddy!

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Whilst I totally understand your point of view and not wanting to open the whole debate, right or wrong we technically speaking we had an additional allowance that was paid by the AFL at their total discretion, they decided to remove this allowance and we were given the option to immediately restructure all of our contracts with COLA included for business as usual or have a phased removal with trade restrictions imposed ... we chose the latter.

Hawthorn is all about good list management, no different to us with Buddy!

we never had an opportunity, those contracts were inked and signed. what we were supposed to convince every player on our list to voluntary agree to terminate there contracts then renegotiate everyones contracts in all in what 3 weeks? Jesus christ there's some coolaide drinkers on bigfooty.
where talking about 36 players being convinced to void their contract, renegotiated with and signed in less then a month.

You can't "restructure" a contract without the other party agreeing to it, you also under AFL can't "restructure" a contract they specifically prohibit clauses allowing alterations to existing contracts to prevent salary cap breaches sneaking after a contract is signed. We were given an ultimatum we could not meet the AFL new this and did it anyway.

 

[kelpie_X]

Yes they do in Victoria, they are right on to it. Maybe blame the club

I'm for the club. The club has been piss weak in not acting on this.

 

[MF]

we never had an opportunity, those contracts were inked and signed. what we were supposed to convince every player on our list to voluntary agree to terminate there contracts then renegotiate everyones contracts in all in what 3 weeks? Jesus christ there's some coolaide drinkers on bigfooty.
where talking about 36 players being convinced to void their contract, renegotiated with and signed in less then a month.

You can't "restructure" a contract without the other party agreeing to it, you also under AFL can't "restructure" a contract they specifically prohibit clauses allowing alterations to existing contracts to prevent salary cap breaches sneaking after a contract is signed. We were given an ultimatum we could not meet the AFL new this and did it anyway.

When Brisbane had the retention allowance removed (also 10% at the time) they had 2 years to restructure everything while still being completely free to trade in whoever they wanted.

 

[Lakeside Swan]

I wonder what would happen if we lost Jetta along with several other trades and retirements at the end of the year, and we there was no one suitable to recruit and as a result we were unable to meet the 90% threshold of the salary cap? Would we be penalised?

 

[Lakeside Swan]

For a comparison when the AFL refined the rules around third party payments around 2011(iirc?) Chris Judds visy deal was allowed to continue despite being outside the guidelines of the updated rules because 'existing contract' or some such. Hypocrtical ****heads running the game.

Great example of hypocracy. That could have easily been stopped.

 

[YorshireSwan]

we never had an opportunity, those contracts were inked and signed. what we were supposed to convince every player on our list to voluntary agree to terminate there contracts then renegotiate everyones contracts in all in what 3 weeks? Jesus christ there's some coolaide drinkers on bigfooty.
where talking about 36 players being convinced to void their contract, renegotiated with and signed in less then a month.

You can't "restructure" a contract without the other party agreeing to it, you also under AFL can't "restructure" a contract they specifically prohibit clauses allowing alterations to existing contracts to prevent salary cap breaches sneaking after a contract is signed. We were given an ultimatum we could not meet the AFL new this and did it anyway.

Point 1 - Yes that is exactly what we were expected to do if we did not want to accept the trade ban ... Im not saying the AFL's intent was not sinister, it was certainly their way of getting the outcome they were seeking - no dispute!. As for not being about to do it - if the time, effort and energy was applied the club could of done it! I do contracts for a living, it was improbable but trust me it was not impossible. Notwithstanding this, as you rightly point out getting the players to agree to this would be another matter. No disputing the AFL knew that renegotiating would have far greater reaching implications for us and that we would begrudgingly accept the trade ban.

Point 2 - Factually incorrect, there is nothing in the standard AFL contract that prohibits renegotiation or restructure, what it does do is ensure the terms of the original contract stand until such time as the amended contract is executed, and lodged with the AFL. The onus is on the club to ensure that it meets its salary cap obligations.

As I said in my original post we 'technically' had the opportunity to chose, the club chose the easier option and I can understand why - I am not arguing the fairness of the options we were given.

 

[YorshireSwan]

Great example of hypocracy. That could have easily been stopped.

Its an emotive topic I know, but big difference is that COLA is paid by the AFL as an allowance, un-guaranteed and at their sole discretion. Judd's Visy deal was a contract directly between him and visy (brokered by but no contractual obligation by Carlton) thus why it was excluded on grounds of existing contract. The AFL and Carlton had no right to impact the contract unless it agreed to buy out its terms.

I am not arguing the fairness, just that contractually the 2 scenarios are very different.

 

[RW]

Hawthorn visitor has been sent back to his own board.

As Sydney Bloods said, it would have been a bit hard to renegotiate 36 player contracts to remove the COLA (which was paid in accordance with the AFL's own rules by the way) when we were only told of the ban on the eve of the trade period. We were given an ultimatum that the AFL knew we could not meet. That is all that needs to be said on that matter.

 

[swansfan51]

If we had the space in the salary cap ($600k this year is the COLA amount) I have no doubt we would have opted to pay it ourselves to have the ability to trade. Clearly we don't have that much salary cap space, a position reinforced by the fact we couldn't fill the senior list and have had to lose depth.

 

[bedford]

Hawthorn visitor has been sent back to his own board.

As Sydney Bloods said, it would have been a bit hard to renegotiate 36 player contracts to remove the COLA (which was paid in accordance with the AFL's own rules by the way) when we were only told of the ban on the eve of the trade period. We were given an ultimatum that the AFL knew we could not meet. That is all that needs to be said on that matter.

They are so arrogant as I've always said

 

[RW]

If we had the space in the salary cap ($600k this year is the COLA amount) I have no doubt we would have opted to pay it ourselves to have the ability to trade. Clearly we don't have that much salary cap space, a position reinforced by the fact we couldn't fill the senior list and have had to lose depth.

That's all true, but the point is the AFL moved their own goal posts mid-match. Bit frustrating.

 

[swansfan51]

That's all true, but the point is the AFL moved their own goal posts mid-match. Bit frustrating.

I agree, I just note our salary cap stress as I think it is an issue as well.

 

[The King!]

either way can only deal with what we have going forward, this year is almost stranger with the average wage provision on our trades.

We still have Derrickx and Pyke signed for next year regardless of trade bans

Who the hell did that

 

[The King!]

I agree, I just note our salary cap stress as I think it is an issue as well.

will be an ongoing issue seen as we have banked on theses increases coming in with the next CBA and eventually we have ageing buddy taking up a chunk of cap

 

[RW]

will be an ongoing issue seen as we have banked on theses increases coming in with the next CBA and eventually we have ageing buddy taking up a chunk of cap

I think we'll be OK with Buddy assuming the CBA increases come in, next year could be interesting though.

A quick note on long-term contracts. While the circumstances couldn't be more different, if you'd assessed the Alistair Lynch deal after 3-4 years it would have looked like a bust. At worst Buddy keeps us somewhat competitive while we rebuild.

 

[The King!]

I think we'll be OK with Buddy assuming the CBA increases come in, next year could be interesting though.

A quick note on long-term contracts. While the circumstances couldn't be more different, if you'd assessed the Alistair Lynch deal after 3-4 years it would have looked like a bust. At worst Buddy keeps us somewhat competitive while we rebuild.

I think we will end up debating the buddy deal in 2017/18

for now its a winner lets hope it stays that way

I just hoped we havent over estimated the cap increases

I am not a fan of multiple long term deals on one list

 

[RW]

I just hoped we havent over estimated the cap increases

I am not a fan of multiple long term deals on one list

Yeah, that's the worry too. I don't think the value of the TV rights will continue to increase that's for sure, ratings seem to be flattening out as more people watch on their tablets etc, but the CBA appears almost certain to increase significantly as the players will want to share in the windfall from past TV rights deals.

Fair point about multiple long term deals though.

 

[The King!]

Yeah, that's the worry too. I don't think the value of the TV rights will continue to increase that's for sure, ratings seem to be flattening out as more people watch on their tablets etc, but the CBA appears almost certain to increase significantly as the players will want to share in the windfall from past TV rights deals.

Fair point about multiple long term deals though.

Tv Rights will be interesting, the future is online i would of thought, but a strong Carlton and Essendon are the key as wise man said.. so who knows.

My concern and you can all shoot me down is the swans focus has been on landing the big glamour forward more than building a premiership contending list, maybe they link together but maybe they dont.

Im not poo pooing the buddy or Tippett deal, just think list management is the life blood of the team and the margin for error is so fine.

 

[YorshireSwan]

Tv Rights will be interesting, the future is online i would of thought, but a strong Carlton and Essendon are the key as wise man said.. so who knows.

My concern and you can all shoot me down is the swans focus has been on landing the big glamour forward more than building a premiership contending list, maybe they link together but maybe they dont.

Im not poo pooing the buddy or Tippett deal, just think list management is the life blood of the team and the margin for error is so fine.

From my perspective I think we got caught out a bit on our list management strategy, we did the Tippett deal and then the Buddy opportunity came along which was too good to refuse from both an on-field and off-field perspective and we had to take it.

I personally think had we known that Buddy 'wanted' to come us we wouldn't have done the Tippett deal and we wouldn't be in the compromised position we find ourselves in now.

 

[PVF]

From my perspective I think we got caught out a bit on our list management strategy, we did the Tippett deal and then the Buddy opportunity came along which was too good to refuse from both an on-field and off-field perspective and we had to take it.

I personally think had we known that Buddy 'wanted' to come us we wouldn't have done the Tippett deal and we wouldn't be in the compromised position we find ourselves in now.

Didn't Buddy contact the club after the 2012 Grand Final?

 

[YorshireSwan]

Didn't Buddy contact the club after the 2012 Grand Final?

I don't know the exact timing of Buddy's contact, but I am sure at that time we would have been in advanced negotiations if not tentatively agreed to terms with Tippett.