2017/18 Off Season Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

What % will I have to pay to delist Ty Vickery after his retirement today?

IMO he meets the lack of motivation criteria for 100% delist. Specifically stated in the article on afl that he doesn’t have the passion anymore. Also is half way through a contract.
 
Seems like one of those ‘lacks motivation because he’s s**t’ retirements to me
Seems like Bucks' thoughts on Mayne was the same as Clarko's on Vickery, but Vickery was on less $$$ and Clarko did it behind closed doors.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

IMO he meets the lack of motivation criteria for 100% delist. Specifically stated in the article on afl that he doesn’t have the passion anymore. Also is half way through a contract.

So is that pay 0% of his remaining contract?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #56
What % will I have to pay to delist Ty Vickery after his retirement today?
Considering he has an AFL contract for next season but has decided to retire, I'd imagine that's lack of motivation. The fact that he still counts against Hawthorn's cap space and list numbers next year makes me think cause to invoke the 0% salary paid delistment rule is valid. Thoughts from others?
 
Considering he has an AFL contract for next season but has decided to retire, I'd imagine that's lack of motivation and cause to invoke the 0% salary paid delistment rule.

Sweet. Ive always been a little unsure with delistings.

Apply to delist Tyrone Vickery at 0% due to lack of motivation/talent ;)
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #58
Sweet. Ive always been a little unsure with delistings.

Apply to delist Tyrone Vickery at 0% due to lack of motivation/talent ;)
I changed my post slightly to what you quoted but I'm certainly in the camp that the 0% should apply.
 
Considering he has an AFL contract for next season but has decided to retire, I'd imagine that's lack of motivation. The fact that he still counts against Hawthorn's cap space and list numbers next year makes me think cause to invoke the 0% salary paid delistment rule is valid. Thoughts from others?
I agree with all of this :thumbsu:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It's setting a precedent to allow a 0% just because he had years on his contract left. I think it would be useful to go back and look at all the players who have been given the 0% in the past for comparison.

In saying that I'm not totally against Vickery getting 0%. Just know it's been a harshly applied rule in the past.
 
It's setting a precedent to allow a 0% just because he had years on his contract left. I think it would be useful to go back and look at all the players who have been given the 0% in the past for comparison.

In saying that I'm not totally against Vickery getting 0%. Just know it's been a harshly applied rule in the past.

He retired while contracted because he doesn’t want to play AFL anymore. Isn’t that why we have this rule?
 
If he didn't have a contract would him being delisted shock you?

We’ll never know. Facts are he walked away from the game.

Without Russian here, I think it’s fair that we have a vote on these maybe?
 
We’ll never know. Facts are he walked away from the game.

Without Russian here, I think it’s fair that we have a vote on these maybe?

Facts are he's not on a list. I don't think we actually know who made the decision. They're always going to do the right thing and let him say he's stepping down.

Just being a bit of a devil's advocate here though. Like I said, I don't mind Vickery getting 0%. I wouldn't have been surprised if Russian had said no (if he was here) though.
 
Facts are he's not on a list. I don't think we actually know who made the decision. They're always going to do the right thing and let him say he's stepping down.

Just being a bit of a devil's advocate here though. Like I said, I don't mind Vickery getting 0%. I wouldn't have been surprised if Russian had said no (if he was here) though.
I never really understood the criteria for the salary discounts and was disappointed with a few rulings over the years that I thought were legitimate grounds for discount. So I definitely see your point and wouldn't argue if people thought we should be strict on the rule.

But I find myself agreeing more with the following approach...
Without Russian here, I think it’s fair that we have a vote on these maybe?
I think if a player retires with a year or more left on his contract it's a nice simple rule that we can apply easily without having to think about it
 
Own player bids
Bryce Gibbs 272 (4)
Shaun Grigg 194 (3)
Jarrod Harbrow 155 (1)
Dougal Howard 155 (1)
Kane Lambert 194 (2)
Toby Nankervis 194 (3)
Jarrad Waite 155 (1)
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #72
Own player bids
Bryce Gibbs 272 (4)
Shaun Grigg 194 (3)
Jarrod Harbrow 155 (1)
Dougal Howard 155 (1)
Kane Lambert 194 (2)
Toby Nankervis 194 (3)
Jarrad Waite 155 (1)
Nankervis bid is invalid. Below minimum for 3 years.
 
Own Player Bids

Matthew Flynn - 1 year, $155k
Cameron Guthrie - 5 years, $311k
Lachlan Henderson - 3 years, $233k
Bailey Williams - 5 years, $311k
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top