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

[crowhead]

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.

You may well be correct Mr Duck. Their stupid assumption, or poor advice, is not the Crows problem though!

 

[Bonkers000]

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.

Either there's a shit fight within the afl or the Geelong board goes nuts. Either way it's going to be a laugh.

 

[Samcro24]

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.

If they wanted to make a distinction between the first two, the rules should be, match the offer and
1) the player becomes contracted to the original club under the matched terms, so he can either
a) stay
b) be traded as a contracted player

Or dont match and he walks. No compo. Club uses cap space.

 

[ManInTheArena]

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.

I don't get your point. There is a distinction in the rules otherwise they wouldn't have made the two definitions. They made two definitions because where the player is restricted the current club can match, that's the definition and you'd have to be some kind of dick brain to expect that there would be a clause inserted that didn't get used or operated like a completely different clause. It doesn't matter if no one's ever matched before. Each circumstance is different and we're well within our rights to match. If anyone opposed it they wouldn't have a legal or ethical leg to stand on.

If we didn't get good compensation and didn't match then they would be as soft as a shit sandwich.

 

[Bonkers000]

If I remember correctly hawthorn tried to match for buddy. However hawthorn wanted to decrease the amount of years but increase the dollar value to be the same as what sydney was offering.
If I'm right like I think I am, if nothing else it will show clubs are willing to match.

 

[crowhead]

If they wanted to make a distinction between the first two, the rules should be, match the offer and
1) the player becomes contracted to the original club under the matched terms, so he can either
a) stay
b) be traded as a contracted player

Or dont match and he walks. No compo. Club uses cap space.

Maybe... if only you were the AFLPA or AFL lawyer. But just like any other hypothetical coulda, shoulda, woulda... the rules, as they stand, allow the Crows to match. There is no legal basis to suggest a club cannot match.

 

[I_Was_There]

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.

Would it necessarily be public? Or would the sh*t fight be behind closed doors?

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Honestly how often has this debate surfaced throughout the past 1300 pages, talk about circle work

We won't match because IMO we wont have to, Danger will stay

However to play the devil advocate if Danger was to leave I hope the AFC matched the offer and forces a trade

The FA and RFA framework and mechanisms were built from a collaborative approach between the players, clubs, AFL and the AFLPA to provide less restrictions for players with service to move between clubs whilst offering clubs some level of protection.

If the AFC were to match, player, club or governing body have no leg to challenge as the mechanism to match an offer for RFA was agreed through a collaborative process

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Honestly how often has this debate surfaced throughout the past 1300 pages, talk about circle work

We won't match because IMO we wont have to, Danger will stay

However to play the devil advocate if Danger was to leave I hope the AFC matched the offer and forces a trade

The FA and RFA framework and mechanisms were built from a collaborative approach between the players, clubs, AFL and the AFLPA to provide less restrictions for players with service to move between clubs whilst offering clubs some level of protection.

If the AFC were to match, player, club or governing body have no leg to challenge as the mechanism to match an offer for RFA was agreed through a collaborative process

Someone will use the matching mechanism eventually, might as well be us.

Couldn't care less if they then dump it because of a backlash.

#notourproblem

 

[Samcro24]

I don't get your point. There is a distinction in the rules otherwise they wouldn't have made the two definitions. They made two definitions because where the player is restricted the current club can match, that's the definition and you'd have to be some kind of dick brain to expect that there would be a clause inserted that didn't get used or operated like a completely different clause. It doesn't matter if no one's ever matched before. Each circumstance is different and we're well within our rights to match. If anyone opposed it they wouldn't have a legal or ethical leg to stand on.

If we didn't get good compensation and didn't match then they would be as soft as a shit sandwich.

There is little to protect the matching club from ending up with squat. Its a token difference between the two forms of FA.

 

[earlsta]

We all know Danger isn't stupid, in fact he's quite an intelligent man who loves his family. However Danger is born to play finals, he was BORN to do it. He'd see quite clearly where we are as a club and where Geelong are currently.

Our team is only a game out of the top 4 whilst nobody in our backline has even played 100 games. We will only get better from here, in fact I'd say we are on the verge of greatness once Crouch returns to the midfield rotations. We have every base covered, every single base. The family pull is great but so is what our club is about to embark on. Patrick will have some major regrets if he leaves, just like Judd. Guaranteed.

 

[RIP Walshy]

There is little to protect the matching club from ending up with squat. Its a token difference between the two forms of FA.

Would be absolutely ridiculous, assuming we have the space in the cap, not to match. If we have the financial capacity to, it's a must. And I would have thought Fagan would have the same view given that everything else he has said so far has been toward vehemently standing up for the club, even against the AFL.

The provision was put in there for a reason, by the AFL and the AFLPA. I'm sure it would have been a key negotiating point when everyone agreed to FA.

I would be very disappointed in the club and its processes if it didn't match, unless it has a very very very good reason not to (that I am obviously missing).

Hearing Woosha speak yesterday or the day before didn't fill me with great confidence (again). His line was basically that the club will move on, players come and go.

 

[crowhead]

Honestly how often has this debate surfaced throughout the past 1300 pages, talk about circle work

We won't match because IMO we wont have to, Danger will stay

However to play the devil advocate if Danger was to leave I hope the AFC matched the offer and forces a trade

The FA and RFA framework and mechanisms were built from a collaborative approach between the players, clubs, AFL and the AFLPA to provide less restrictions for players with service to move between clubs whilst offering clubs some level of protection.

If the AFC were to match, player, club or governing body have no leg to challenge as the mechanism to match an offer for RFA was agreed through a collaborative process

Yes... this is what I've been trying to say... And I know it's been said over and over - but some of our friends still fail to understand something very simple. Or one of them is Jon Ralph.

 

[Jarman3]

Free agency was introduced to facilitate the movement of players between clubs. There's a difference between matching to prevent the player leaving and matching to force a trade in order to extract a better deal than the compensation pick. If the Crows match then trade Danger to Geelong for fair value then I doubt the AFL or the AFLPA would care because the player still got to his chosen destination. In fact I think they'd say the system worked exactly as intended.

 

[SydCrow]

Part of me wants him to go - if he stays and signs a two year contract we will have TWO MORE YEARS OF THIS ****

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

FYI mate - we're looking into this one as you clearly need some support and guidance.

That's nice. Thanks

 

[Pugsley]

 

[RIP Walshy]

Eddie Betts says he is staying, Bicks reckons he's staying.

Pls Eddie

 

[ManInTheArena]

There is little to protect the matching club from ending up with squat. Its a token difference between the two forms of FA.

There's a lot to protect them, i.e. a trade. In that way we can something half decent. Otherwise we could end up with anything. Having the capacity to match gives us a lot of power in this situation.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

If danger decided to go to Geelong at this stage, it would rival this in decision making:

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

?

 

[ManInTheArena]

I think Dangerfield has quite clearly changed his views on the number one priority being success. I think it comes second to family now that they've both had a think about what family might mean over the next few years.

It was three years he was in that head space, it's not worth brining it up as if people aren't allowed to change their perspective.

 

[Samcro24]

There's a lot to protect them, i.e. a trade. In that way we can something half decent. Otherwise we could end up with anything. Having the capacity to match gives us a lot of power in this situation.

It gives us the same power as when an out of contract player requests a trade. Which is none. You deal and get unders, or risk the PSD.

 

[fabs33]

There is little to protect the matching club from ending up with squat. Its a token difference between the two forms of FA.

It would be no different to any other trade, and many trades are done every year.

 

[Mattrox]

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

Because they want all the best players to be in a VFL team.....