No Oppo Supporters Re-signing Tex, Danger and Sloane *** Crows Only ***

[Wood_Duck]

But by signing of on the agreement that gives the clubs a right to match an offer, they are are as guilty as anyone (perhaps even more than the other parties, because they're job is to represent the player in the process). Signing off on it in the hope that no club would actually take up the option is no justification at all.

It was their concession to get the AFL to approve it in the first place.

 

[splat868]

If they have agreed to it in writing, there is nothing they can do. Its a legal document, and I would asume lodged with fair work Australia

If they want to challenge it, it is between them and the AFL, and wouldn't involve the AFC, and would take months to tesolve.

Whether or not the AFL tries to mediate and offer the Crows a beneficial solution is another matter I guess, but as a party to it, they wouldn't be able to do mych against it other than get it changed in future.

 

[crowhead]

I wouldnt be so sure.

Strikes me that just about every new AFL law is fundamentally flawed. Think of all the things theyve ballsed up.

COLA
MRP
Clash jumpers
Father Son Rule
Rule Interpretations
Sub Rule
FA Compo

It gets discussed and debated at length. Then finally, after a year or two gets changed to how it should have be in the first place.

"Finally, common sense prevails" -Should be the AFL motto.

Yes but this is what we are saying in saying it's not a flaw. It might not operate how the AFLPA were hoping, but you can't write a rule and then claim you were never intending to have that rule used. The very fact that the rule exists is evidence to suggest it's not a flaw: it was created by design and with a clear purpose. That purpose was to differentiate between 8 year players and 10 year players.

 

[1970crow]

Restriction of trade is the leg they will stand on.

Im not agreeing with them but its what they have said.

I think it's time that the 'restraint of trade' argument was tested. I'm reasonably (not really) confident that players are employees of the AFL and that them working in Adelaide or Sydney or Melbourne is no different than a bank employee who cannot demand to be relocated to a branch of their choice. Obviously, prepared to be wrong, but I have this vague recollection of that being mentioned somewhere.

 

[ManInTheArena]

They have already had a say on matching RFA offers and have threatened to take action if it happens.

Rubbish. There is no action they can take. Gee you're talking bullshit. It's like a company agreeing to have 2 days bereavement leave in their agreement and then the union chucking the shits because they're not giving 4 four days. It's just bullshit.

 

[Samcro24]

Yes but this is what we are saying in saying it's not a flaw. It might not operate how the AFLPA were hoping, but you can't write a rule and then claim you were never intending to have that rule used. The very fact that the rule exists is evidence to suggest it's not a flaw: it was created by design and with a clear purpose. That purpose was to differentiate between 8 year players and 10 year players.

And Im saying this is exactly how they roll.

 

[crowhead]

It was their concession to get the AFL to approve it in the first place.

We certainly agree on this. But they cannot now claim that their "concession" was not a concession given in good faith. They will have a very hard time arguing "yeah well we said we'd agree to that to get you to sign-off but we had our fingers crossed so it doesn't count".

 

[GrommoT]

Lets see how long the rule lasts if we match.

All the more reason for us to do it (if it came to that) before the rule is scrubbed - we get to have a free kick that maybe noone else gets.

 

[crowhead]

And Im saying this is exactly how they roll.

I know. Refer to above post. Their lawyers would have advised them of the fact that once it's put down in writing, their intentions behind writing it are absolutely and totally legally irrelevant.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Yes but this is what we are saying in saying it's not a flaw. It might not operate how the AFLPA were hoping, but you can't write a rule and then claim you were never intending to have that rule used. The very fact that the rule exists is evidence to suggest it's not a flaw: it was created by design and with a clear purpose. That purpose was to differentiate between 8 year players and 10 year players.

You are getting too caught up in the word flaw which you have taken a disliking too. Change the word to one you are happy with.

 

[ManInTheArena]

I wouldnt be so sure.

Strikes me that just about every new AFL law is fundamentally flawed. Think of all the things theyve ballsed up.

COLA
MRP
Clash jumpers
Father Son Rule
Rule Interpretations
Sub Rule
FA Compo

It gets discussed and debated at length. Then finally, after a year or two gets changed to how it should have be in the first place.

"Finally, common sense prevails" -Should be the AFL motto.

Those were the rules agreed to. Is it flawed because a restricted free agent can't just tootle off wherever he wants? No its not. It was always designed that way.

 

[1970crow]

RFA will disappear. Paul Marsh was pretty emphatic that he didnt want clubs to have the ability to undermine the intention of FA. They dont own the players blah blah blah

Would be a bit of a bugger. Get the AFL to agree to a limited form after only a few years of service which provides the clubs a degree of control. And then as soon as a club is about to use that clause whilst being offered pick 15 for a league-wide top 6 player, threaten legal action that would threaten to bring the entire system down.

 

[crowhead]

You are getting too caught up in the word flaw which you have taken a disliking too. Change the word to one you are happy with.

No, I'm not. I'm getting caught up in this simple legal principle:

The words of an agreement are given their ordinary meaning. No background context to signing the agreement, subjective intentions as to how it would operate in practice, or whatever else you want to call it, can be considered.

 

[mistylake]

That comes up a lot with the AFLPA, yet they never seem to do anything about it. I can see how the draft may be a restriction of trade, but RFA? It's not like a club matching an offer then forces that player to stay where they are. Other avenues for them to go elsewhere open up after that. Our version of RFA is far less restrictive than the NBA for instance.

I would have thought if you want to play in the AFL you agree to do so within the rules of the organization. If that doesn't suit you. **** off and play soccer.

 

[Wood_Duck]

No, I'm not. I'm getting caught up in this simple legal principle:

The words of an agreement are given their ordinary meaning. No background context to signing the agreement, subjective intentions as to how it would operate in practice, or whatever else you want to call it, can be considered.

Go you.

 

[Samcro24]

Those were the rules agreed to. Is it flawed because a restricted free agent can't just tootle off wherever he wants? No its not. It was always designed that way.

So why is the whole industry seemingly of the opinion that we wont match?

 

[FantasticShirt]

So is Bickley very confident that Dangerfield will sign with us for 2 years? I am guessing he might have as good an info as anyone in the media.

Not sure Bickley has ever said anything like that?

 

[crowhead]

So why is the whole industry seemingly of the opinion that we wont match?

Because of this idea that you don't want players at your club who don't want to be there. Certainly not that we don't have the legal right to.

 

[Bonkers000]

In a weird way I kind of want danger to go to Geelong just so we can find out whether we will match, and, to see the sh*t fight that is expected if we do.
It would solve all this debating pretty fast.

 

[ManInTheArena]

So why is the whole industry seemingly of the opinion that we wont match?

Like? Journalists and Geelong supporters you mean?

 

[ManInTheArena]

In a weird way I kind of want danger to go to Geelong just so we can find out whether we will match, and, to see the sh*t fight that is expected if we do.
It would solve all this debating pretty fast.

The only shit fight is the deluded one created in the head of Geelong supporters. Other than that there is nothing. The AFLPA would be stupid to create a fight over something they agreed to and understood. In the real world they would be laughed out of the room.

 

[Samcro24]

Like? Journalists and Geelong supporters you mean?

So far, every RFA has moved as if they were a FA.

With the threat of the PSD, and the fact that you get just about always get unders with an uncontracted player asks for a trade (which is the scenario once you match), and there at least is a 1st round pick on the table as compo, there is little incentive for a club to match.

Under the rules, there is bugger all distinction between a FA and RFA. This is the flaw in the planning.

 

[Jarman3]

So why is the whole industry seemingly of the opinion that we wont match?

Maybe they're expecting Geelong to over ludicrous overs to make sure his current club won't match - like Sydney did with Franklin (and Tippett in the sense they offered so much that he fell all the way through the preseason draft to the team with the last pick). And if they do so then good luck to him - they'll be screwing themselves just like Sydney have.

 

[Wood_Duck]

I think it was agreed to as a concession based on their belief that no club would try and keep a player against their will when put into practice. To be honest, it wouldnt suprise me if that is the case.

 

[crowhead]

With the threat of the PSD, and the fact that you get just about always get unders with an uncontracted player asks for a trade (which is the scenario once you match), and there at least is a 1st round pick on the table as compo, there is little incentive for a club to match.

You've answered your own question here. This is another reason why clubs typically don't match, but again, it's not because they don't have the legal right to.

Crucially, in our circumstance, it might be better to match, take the risk of PSD (which you'd assume Patty wouldn't want to go in, in case some dud club takes him) and see if we can get some better compensation than we'd get under RFA rules.