Game of Sloane (THE OFFICIAL HE IS STAYING thread) Thread now closed

[arrowman]

You’re reading a ‘version’ of rules, that have not been verified as current, with a personal interpretation, which are in contradiction to statements made by the league.

the basis for which you diminish the league statements, is that you have assumed that the version of the rules you are looking at, and how you have interpreted them, is incontrovertible.

You're framing this as though I am digging my heels in on a claim (that Sloane is an RFA) and arguing the point. I'm not.

My position is: I have read the rules (as published on the AFLPA website), measured them against Sloane's circumstances, and come to a conclusion. I may be wrong. I welcome any counter-arguments that show I am wrong. I am not making a "bookmark it!" claim and trying to defend it against all comers, I am contributing to a discussion.

In that context, I would be happy (well, disappointed, of course, for our club's situation) to see evidence that shows I am wrong. But I do not believe that my (tentative) conclusion is "in contradiction to statements made by the league" because the statement in question (Keane's statement that there is no longer a need to be RFA before UFA) does not refer to Sloane and his particular situation.

- Or at least, I don't see how it does (refer to Sloane). If someone can show how it does, or where I am wrong with reference to the rules, then that would be fine.

I don’t think your assumptions are all that sound.

Maybe they're not. Maybe I've got something wrong. Happy to be corrected.

Seems to me that there are more than sufficient grounds to be concerned at this stage

I agree with that. I'm not so comfortable with my bush lawyer amateur effort that I think "there's nothing to be concerned about".

Look - he probably will turn out to be UFA. Which would mean my analysis was wrong. I'm OK with that. But it's a pity that if that happens, I'll probably never know where I got it wrong. Because the AFL will just publish a list of UFAs, with Sloane's name on it, and without any background or reference to the rules and how they apply in Sloane's case.

Which would be a pity, because I like to learn

 

[GrommoT]

...
My position is: I have read the rules (as published on the AFLPA website), measured them against Sloane's circumstances, and come to a conclusion. I may be wrong. I welcome any counter-arguments that show I am wrong. I am not making a "bookmark it!" claim and trying to defend it against all comers, I am contributing to a discussion.

Would think that the AFLPA would be motivated enough to keep their website up to date and have the latest version of the agreement (as they seem to) whereas running of the AFL's website has been subcontracted out to Telstra (I think) and the AFL's site is large and has a significant number of outdated items (that I've come across) still up there. ie. I trust the AFLPA's copy of the agreement more.

But I do not believe that my (tentative) conclusion is "in contradiction to statements made by the league" because the statement in question (Keane's statement that there is no longer a need to be RFA before UFA) does not refer to Sloane and his particular situation.

- Or at least, I don't see how it does (refer to Sloane). If someone can show how it does, or where I am wrong with reference to the rules, then that would be fine.

I reckon Sloane's one of the players caught in the transition from the old to new agreement. I haven't thought it out in detail but I imagine under the new agreement, Sloane's current contract situation would not arise ... so they stuck in a couple of clauses to deal with cases like his.

Look - he probably will turn out to be UFA. Which would mean my analysis was wrong. I'm OK with that. But it's a pity that if that happens, I'll probably never know where I got it wrong. Because the AFL will just publish a list of UFAs, with Sloane's name on it, and without any background or reference to the rules and how they apply in Sloane's case.

Sadly this is probably what will happen ... they'll declare something with no explanation given.

 

[radiojake]

If the co-captain/re-signing stuff was 'common knowledge' that rookie players know about it, surely the club would announce it

There's no reason for the club to sit on something like that

 

[Stiffy_18]

Staying!

 

[Big Dub]

Would think that the AFLPA would be motivated enough to keep their website up to date and have the latest version of the agreement (as they seem to) whereas running of the AFL's website has been subcontracted out to Telstra (I think) and the AFL's site is large and has a significant number of outdated items (that I've come across) still up there. ie. I trust the AFLPA's copy of the agreement more.


I reckon Sloane's one of the players caught in the transition from the old to new agreement. I haven't thought it out in detail but I imagine under the new agreement, Sloane's current contract situation would not arise ... so they stuck in a couple of clauses to deal with cases like his.


Sadly this is probably what will happen ... they'll declare something with no explanation given.

We can only go by the wording of the CBA on the AFLPA website. By my reading, as Sloane entered into his current contract in his seventh (not eighth) season, he doesn't comply with 1.2(b)(ii) of Annexure D (Free Agency Rules) and therefore is a Restricted Free Agent.

This doesn't mean that players can't skip RFA before becoming a UFA. If Rory had signed his current contract in June 2016, he would be a UFA without having ever been a FRA, as he was never out of contract in his eighth year. If he signed in November 2016, he would have been a RFA first.

Sure, the AFL/ AFLPA could always come out and say the CBA was changed from the version updated on either website, but unless we see that wording we can't conclude it makes Rory UFA.

 

[Bearded Clam]

We can only go by the wording of the CBA on the AFLPA website. By my reading, as Sloane entered into his current contract in his seventh (not eighth) season, he doesn't comply with 1.2(b)(ii) of Annexure D (Free Agency Rules) and therefore is a Restricted Free Agent.

This doesn't mean that players can't skip RFA before becoming a UFA. If Rory had signed his current contract in June 2016, he would be a UFA without having ever been a FRA, as he was never out of contract in his eighth year. If he signed in November 2016, he would have been a RFA first.

Sure, the AFL/ AFLPA could always come out and say the CBA was changed from the version updated on either website, but unless we see that wording we can't conclude it makes Rory UFA.

Here’s the original post from arrowman going step by step under the NEW rules of FA in the CBA 2017-2021.. I think it needs to be posted again to show, step by step, exactly Rory Sloanes circumstances;

Rory was drafted in the 2008 draft in November. 2009 was his first season.

So that means 2018 will be his 10th season.

He signed his last contract in June 2015 - that is, during his 7th season.

Now, working through the rules in the CBA

1.1(a)(i) The Relevant Year is 2018.

1.1(a)(ii) He will have been on the list for at least 8 consecutive years.

1.1(b) Therefore he is a Free Agent.

The rest of 1.1 is irrelevant.

1.2 Restricted Free Agents

1.2(a)(i) Yes, he meets the criteria under 1.1(a) for 2018.

1.2(a)(ii) We have to assume he's in the top 25% salary bracket at the club, therefore he is a Restricted Free Agent.

HOWEVER under 1.2(b) he will not be an RFA if both of the following apply:

1.2(b)(i) His Contract of Service expires on or before 31 October in a particular year being equal to or greater than his tenth consecutive year...

Yes it does, because 2018 is his tenth year.

AND - this is where it gets tricky...

1.2(b)(ii) "he has already entered into a new Contract of Service with his Current Club once following 1 March in his eighth consecutive AFL Season on the Primary and/or Rookie List of that Club."

In Rory's case, he entered into a new contract following 1 March in 2015 - which was his SEVENTH season.

Given that he has to satisfy BOTH parts of 1.2: "he will not be an RFA if both of the following apply"...

My reading of the above is: He is a Free Agent, however he will not be an RFA if BOTH of the following apply, and "both of the following" do not apply (i.e. 1.2(b)(ii) does not apply, therefore he is an RFA.)

Now... that’s the rules... if someone else is interpreting them differently please respond step by step exactly the way arrowman has using the current FA rules.

And if someone has a new ruling that has been added since the current CBA was released please post a direct link to this new rule/rule change.

Because as far as I can see it under the current rules of the new CBA... UFA doesnt apply to Sloane.

 

[Mismatched]

Staying!

Heard something Stiff?

 

[BRL121]

Heard something Stiff?

No. He's just on the positive part of his oscillation.

 

[Elite Crow]

No. He's just on the positive part of his oscillation.

You mean spam.

 

[ams4crows]

With Tex potentially missing the first few rounds hope Rory enjoys the captaincy before he leaves.

 

[Vooligan]

I've done a complete backflip. I'm in the "staying" camp now.

Can we do a new poll?

 

[Runnin Blue]

Staying!

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

 

[CrowsFlag2018]

Ive been saying for years that resigning news would be kept until the eve of the season to send a message of intent about our culture, loyalty and to piss on pricks who feel like they can never sign anything until thr end of the year.

The lad is staying and itll be announced the week leading up to round 1.

 

[Redleg Crow]

When was the last time he gave an interview?

 

[Danger in Texas]

I'm really not sure. Gut feeling currently (although gut feelings change all the time) is that this is a Dusty-type situation and he stays after considering his options. This is, after all, the biggest contract opportunity of his career

Sloaney won't take this decision lightly, no matter how much he loves the club.

 

[Dc9798]

Am I missing something, our Port flogs think the appointment of Tex as Captain has failed. Now considering in his two years as Captain we’ve made finals and a GF and he’s been voted best captain by the comps players 2 years running, how the **** do they come up with that?

#powerlogic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Elite Crow]

When was the last time he gave an interview?

At least he won’t be a regular on 5AA as he’s on MMM

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I'm really not sure. Gut feeling currently (although gut feelings change all the time) is that this is a Dusty-type situation and he stays after considering his options. This is, after all, the biggest contract opportunity of his career

Sloaney won't take this decision lightly, no matter how much he loves the club.

My gut feeling is I genuinely have nfi what he is going to do.

 

[1970crow]

You mean spam.

I appreciate the bloke's inside info, but the joke is getting old and it wasn't really entertaining to begin with. Still, no doubt amusing himself and that's why most of us are here.

 

[BRL121]

I appreciate the bloke's inside info, but the joke is getting old and it wasn't really entertaining to begin with. Still, no doubt amusing himself and that's why most of us are here.

He's only carrying on the time-honoured tradition of Dogs105.

 

[pjcrows]

People seem to have this idea that everyone at the club sits around discussing their contracts with each other. One thing that players and coaches don't internally discuss amongst each other is contracts. A rookie would not know what Sloane plans to do.

 

[adelaidecrows]

People seem to have this idea that everyone at the club sits around discussing their contracts with each other. One thing that players and coaches don't internally discuss amongst each other is contracts. A rookie would not know what Sloane plans to do.

They probably don't discuss contract details but you're going to discuss with your mates whether you are thinking of staying or going. He may not discuss it with everyone but sure as s**t I bet his closest friends at the club have an idea. Now whether those friends said something is another story. But how do we know that Sloane and the club hasn't made a private announcement to his team mates and they were supposed to keep it secret until the announcement.

 

[SnakesLadders]

its not about the money

 

[MRB37]

People seem to have this idea that everyone at the club sits around discussing their contracts with each other. One thing that players and coaches don't internally discuss amongst each other is contracts. A rookie would not know what Sloane plans to do.

It's a Crows player spreading the info, but it's not one currently at the club.