Player Watch Nathan Murphy (Retired 2024)

[ElliottsMaggies]

 

[Gilbert_Grape]

The counter to that is the recent reportage that the club expected Murphy to retire but signed him for another year as a goodwill gesture.

I reckon the AFL might be well within their rights to tell us it stays in the cap.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

They could but is paying extra to someone not playing (that their independent panel retired) really contrary to intent of the salary cap? (They could order $1m in coffee from his cafe instead?)

Given the extension was before the panel retired him (& presumably after the panel originally "cleared" him) then it was credible he could play on. The club might argue a training incident aftter the extension was signed changed things. Could argue 5yrs for Brayshaw or any contract for McCartin was just as risky.

It does sound like they were careful to get the panel to make the call on his behalf - as though Murphy might have invited that outcome to make it "clean" (which you might argue is exploitating it at the margin).

But presumably workcover/insurance claims have to deal with similar. In this case it still involved an independent panel making the call. And most reports are players explointing concussion rules to keep playing, not the other way around.

 

[Abdul_The_Bull]

They could but is paying extra to someone not playing (that their independent panel retired) really contrary to intent of the salary cap? (They could order $1m in coffee from his cafe instead?)

Given the extension was before the panel retired him (& presumably after the panel originally "cleared" him) then it was credible he could play on. The club might argue a training incident aftter the extension was signed changed things. Could argue 5yrs for Brayshaw or any contract for McCartin was just as risky.

It does sound like they were careful to get the panel to make the call on his behalf - as though Murphy might have invited that outcome to make it "clean" (which you might argue is exploitating it at the margin).

But presumably workcover/insurance claims have to deal with similar. In this case it still involved an independent panel making the call. And most reports are players explointing concussion rules to keep playing, not the other way around.

I suspect that once the 'panel' make a ruling that a player is deemed 'unfit' to play should a player choose to continue then there would be all sorts of issues around liablity and getting appropriate insurance coverage. If this 'panel' is independent, then there should be no issue for the AFL - particularly around excluding remining term, beyond current year, from the club's salary cap.
So, in the case of Murphy, he gets paid out his 2024 and 2025 years in the 2024 year and the club gets to exclude the 2025 year contract value from their salary cap for that year.
There may be some more nuanced dealings with longer term deals like Brayshaw's but I would be comfortable with a similar ruling for Melbourne FC.

 

[Mostfamousclub_Pies]

Not sure what you mean? For now, presuming Murph is delisted at the end of the year, all of his 24/25 payment goes into this year's cap. It will then be for the AFL, if they see fit, to give some relief by allowing a portion to sit outside the cap - presumably the 25 component.

Once they knew he was a candidate for an early retirement, they should have changed his contract to one with a payout option, instead of signing him on for another year.

 

[31550]

Still not following. Are you proposing an ex gratia payment on top of the remainder of the contract? Which would sit outside the cap?

Re: exploitation, for instance, where does "medical retirement" stop and "ageing out" begin?

All I am saying is
(1) there should be hard and fast rules for what is in the cap and what is not in the cap, and they should apply equally to all clubs and all players.
(2) a club is disadvantaged when a player is forcibly/involuntarily 'medically retired' permanently from the game. I am referring to instances where the player has the intention of playing and completing his contract but is forced to retire on medical grounds (e.g. concussion). I am proposing that the remainder of the player payments be removed from the club's salary cap pro-rata, as this is an exceptional situation (the player has no prospect of ever playing again), so it is unfair for a club to continue to hold this amount in their salary cap when they no longer have the services of that player, ever.
(3) If a player voluntarily retires or is delisted by the club, then they get whatever is by provided by their contract and it all remains in the salary cap. Similarly, if a player sustains a temporary (short-term or long-term) injury their salary remains in the cap. That's just the risk all clubs and all players take.

 

[jmac70]

Once they knew he was a candidate for an early retirement, they should have changed his contract to one with a payout option, instead of signing him on for another year.

They could have done that if they were complete A-Holes.

 

[Mostfamousclub_Pies]

They could have done that if they were complete A-Holes.

Why would it make them arseholes? They could have given him a package equivalent to a year’s contract. It’s the same thing done another way.

 

[jmac70]

Why would it make them arseholes? They could have given him a package equivalent to a year’s contract. It’s the same thing done another way.

So why do it?

 

[Mostfamousclub_Pies]

So why do it?

I think that is a question for them. Maybe they know that it won’t come under the salary cap. Sideswipe seems to think otherwise however.

 

[sideswipe]

I think that is a question for them. Maybe they know that it won’t come under the salary cap. Sideswipe seems to think otherwise however.

For ANY payments to Murph not to be in the cap requires the AFL to give an exemption. That’s the rules.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sr36]

They could but is paying extra to someone not playing (that their independent panel retired) really contrary to intent of the salary cap? (They could order $1m in coffee from his cafe instead?)

Given the extension was before the panel retired him (& presumably after the panel originally "cleared" him) then it was credible he could play on. The club might argue a training incident aftter the extension was signed changed things. Could argue 5yrs for Brayshaw or any contract for McCartin was just as risky.

It does sound like they were careful to get the panel to make the call on his behalf - as though Murphy might have invited that outcome to make it "clean" (which you might argue is exploitating it at the margin).

But presumably workcover/insurance claims have to deal with similar. In this case it still involved an independent panel making the call. And most reports are players explointing concussion rules to keep playing, not the other way around.

Let's recruit a bloke for 300,000 a year and then pay him 5 million after he retires outside the cap...

That's what the AFL would be wary about.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Murphy wasn’t a patch on Langdon in the beginning according to many.

According to some he wasn’t a patch on Madge

 

[Cyclops]

According to some he wasn’t a patch on Madge

Yeah it's a credit to Murphy he was able to make himself (and be coached into) a better player than Magden, because when he began he seemed a bit like a less durable version of Madge.

Langdon was 100% a class footballer and like Murphy injury robbed him of more opportunity.

I don't see any need to disparage Magden or Langdon here.

 

[Mostfamousclub_Pies]

For ANY payments to Murph not to be in the cap requires the AFL to give an exemption. That’s the rules.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Fair enough

 

[jmac70]

According to some he wasn’t a patch on Madge

The correct usage is The Madge.

 

[Horaceg]

The correct usage is The Madge.

Oh The Madge, played more games in the Black and White than The Me, how many did The he play? That’s how many more.

The Madge wasn’t the most talented but he had a crack and was The Our The Madge.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Yeah it's a credit to Murphy he was able to make himself (and be coached into) a better player than Magden, because when he began he seemed a bit like a less durable version of Madge.

Langdon was 100% a class footballer and like Murphy injury robbed him of more opportunity.

I don't see any need to disparage Magden or Langdon here.

Fair cop was a bit of a throwaway line but Madgen and a few others who got lots of games eg Cal Brown were indicative of a list in transition, waiting for the likes of Murphy and Josh Daicos to be ready.

Langdon and Murphy were sadly robbed of much longer careers that they could have achieved.

 

[Gilbert_Grape]

Let's recruit a bloke for 300,000 a year and then pay him 5 million after he retires outside the cap...

That's what the AFL would be wary about.

Sure but doesn't that cunning plan also require the player to get concussed 10 times along the way? Subbing off 1/4 into a grand final was a clever ruse! Not sure it will catch on though (& still a panel involved).

The alternative is encouraging players at risk to try and play on for the extra pay (and potentially conceal symptoms etc).

 

[sr36]

Sure but doesn't that cunning plan also require the player to get concussed 10 times along the way? Subbing off 1/4 into a grand final was a clever ruse! Not sure it will catch on though (& still a panel involved).

The alternative is encouraging players at risk to try and play on for the extra pay (and potentially conceal symptoms etc).

My comment was in relation to payments after retirement.

Players want long contracts, it's insurance part of the reason is the risk of injury. You could help your cap situation if you agreed to give a non salary cap payment if the player medically retired.

 

[Gilbert_Grape]

My comment was in relation to payments after retirement.

Players want long contracts, it's insurance part of the reason is the risk of injury. You could help your cap situation if you agreed to give a non salary cap payment if the player medically retired.

I get that & sorry for the sarcasm. I doubt the Murphy extension had any bearing on his recruitment or retention and the key to preventing cap manipulation would be panel sign off (consistent with Brayshaw).

Not suggesting the AFL will make a blanket rule, just suggesting there's an argument to treat this the same as Brayshaw and McCartin cap relief even though the extension was recent.

 

[sr36]

I get that & sorry for the sarcasm. I doubt the Murphy extension had any bearing on his recruitment or retention and the key to preventing cap manipulation would be panel sign off (consistent with Brayshaw).

Not suggesting the AFL will make a blanket rule, just suggesting there's an argument to treat this the same as Brayshaw and McCartin cap relief even though the extension was recent.

I agree with you. It's not like Collingwood get an advantage from it. But I can see why the AFL might be reluctant. As they don't want golden handshakes to come in, which this kind of was.

The whole thing is a bit blurry. He was cleared to play, but is now discussing his ongoing symptoms? Are you cleared to play with ongoing symptoms?

I'm not sure the AFL will be too keen on the way it's played out.

 

[Bianconeri]

Did Nathan Murphy

28

Nathan Murphy

Age

24

Ht

192cm

Wt

90kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.5

3star

K

6.5

3star

HB

5.0

4star

M

2.5

3star

T

1.5

3star

MG

176.5

3star

No current season stats available

D

11.5

3star

K

6.5

3star

HB

5.0

4star

M

2.5

3star

T

1.5

4star

MG

176.5

3star

sign the extension before or after the Nick Daicos tackle?

 

[petrie pie]

Did Nathan Murphy sign the extension before or after the Nick Daicos tackle?

That is a good question because he was in full training at the time of that tackle and I am certain that stopped any thoughts he entertained of resuming, I do not think he had any physical contact training after that.

You could tell from his reaction and the coaches who helped him that thought it might signal a finish of Nathan,s career and they were right it did.

 

[JD888]

Absolutely gutted for Murphy. As a Brisbane resident I was pretty devastated by last years GF but in hindsight I now see Murphy’s premiership medallion as being far more important than Brisbane lifting the cup.

 

[jmac70]

Did Nathan Murphy sign the extension before or after the Nick Daicos tackle?

Does it matter?