List Mgmt. 'Retiring' whilst under contract

[Orange Agent]

It's time the AFL made some rules regarding this. Due diligence is the buyers responsibility in everything outside of the AFL world. Buy a shitty used car that breaks down after a month, you are responsible for fixing it. Buy a house that starts falling apart after a year, you are responsible for fixing it/selling it for a loss. I actually find it odd the AFLPA and player managers have not had it written into the standard contract a minimum payment amount if the contract is terminated early. At a minimum, the club should be held to account and forced to pay a minimum 50% of the total contract under the salary cap. If it needs to spread over future years, so be it, but it costs you a list spot for every year that is done. Stop giving clubs a free hit by offering big, long term contracts and weasling their way out of them.

 

[Virgin Dog]

It's time the AFL made some rules regarding this. Due diligence is the buyers responsibility in everything outside of the AFL world. Buy a shitty used car that breaks down after a month, you are responsible for fixing it. Buy a house that starts falling apart after a year, you are responsible for fixing it/selling it for a loss. I actually find it odd the AFLPA and player managers have not had it written into the standard contract a minimum payment amount if the contract is terminated early. At a minimum, the club should be held to account and forced to pay a minimum 50% of the total contract under the salary cap. If it needs to spread over future years, so be it, but it costs you a list spot for every year that is done. Stop giving clubs a free hit by offering big, long term contracts and weasling their way out of them.

I'm assuming this is referring to Dayne Beams. I have to disagree here.

In the real world, when two parties sign a contract, and the party delivering the service (Beams) pulls out prematurely, they are not entitled to a portion of the remaining unpaid contract. If he suffered an onsite injury (i.e. career ending knee injury during a game or training) then he would be entitled to compensation, but pull out for other reasons (mental health, or someone like Wines who gets injured water skiing) and it's not the other party's responsibility.

When Boyd retired, he left the remainder of his contract on the table. If Beams is going to retire, he cannot reasonably expect a payout from Collingwood

 

[adammania9]

I agreed upon first reading but having thought about it, it’s a good discussion to have but I disagree. In the business world, contracts are had and as Virgin Dog said above me, there are conditions that apply if contracts can’t be fulfilled for reasons like this. The used car analogy doesn’t really apply because if I buy a used car, the car doesn’t sign a contract for me that says it must serve my needs for as many years as we agree on.

 

[Yojimbo]

Every case is different and unique, long term deals are risky, AFL football is normally not a long term job
except for the fortunate ones. The entire system is about replenishment of talent at basement prices.

 

[mike91]

If you retire whilst contracted you shouldn't get a cent.

Beams will get some money, which is pathetic, he doesn't deserve a single dollar

 

[Underarm]

If you retire whilst contracted you shouldn't get a cent.

Beams will get some money, which is pathetic, he doesn't deserve a single dollar

That's Collingwood's fault for signing Beams on such a long contract. Paying out his contract means they can get him off their list earlier to help them get someone else.

 

[jiphoc]

If you retire whilst contracted you shouldn't get a cent.

Beams will get some money, which is pathetic, he doesn't deserve a single dollar

Beams retiring was a 2 way conversation. Whilst I agree with players who retire should not get paid. In his case though an agreement should be settled.

 

[Gralin]

It's time the AFL made some rules regarding this. Due diligence is the buyers responsibility in everything outside of the AFL world. Buy a shitty used car that breaks down after a month, you are responsible for fixing it. Buy a house that starts falling apart after a year, you are responsible for fixing it/selling it for a loss. I actually find it odd the AFLPA and player managers have not had it written into the standard contract a minimum payment amount if the contract is terminated early. At a minimum, the club should be held to account and forced to pay a minimum 50% of the total contract under the salary cap. If it needs to spread over future years, so be it, but it costs you a list spot for every year that is done. Stop giving clubs a free hit by offering big, long term contracts and weasling their way out of them.

You do realise that people are not objects right?

You've also not paid much attention recently if you think clubs can retire players without financial impact.

Hawks kept Langford on the rookie list for the year after he retired due to TPP requirements. Swans did the same with Tippett.

They were paying money to contracted players that had retired before the end of the contract. The agreed upon settlements had TPP impact and both used list positions on retired players and had to count money in the cap.

What kind of free hit are you imagining?

 

[Cripptonite]

It's time the AFL made some rules regarding this. Due diligence is the buyers responsibility in everything outside of the AFL world. Buy a shitty used car that breaks down after a month, you are responsible for fixing it. Buy a house that starts falling apart after a year, you are responsible for fixing it/selling it for a loss. I actually find it odd the AFLPA and player managers have not had it written into the standard contract a minimum payment amount if the contract is terminated early. At a minimum, the club should be held to account and forced to pay a minimum 50% of the total contract under the salary cap. If it needs to spread over future years, so be it, but it costs you a list spot for every year that is done. Stop giving clubs a free hit by offering big, long term contracts and weasling their way out of them.

Best post I have read on bigfooty. It's mindboggling how clubs are not held accountable for terrible list management. I hate the Buddy deal more than most, but why are the Swans stuck with his deal on the books, comparatively the the Dogs can ship off Boyd after only fulfilling 50% of his contract? Double standards. Wells, Rance, Vickery and Yarran are all examples of this too. The Pies "bought" Beam's premiership medal as a "donation", smells pretty bad considering they are now reaching a settlement on his contract one month later.

The AFL need to make player contracts public, we need more visibility and accountability. Can't wait until free agency arrives next year and the Tigers go and offer Zac Williams (or another gun) $900k of the "Rance" money.

 

[Capriati]

I'm assuming this is referring to Danyne Beams. I have to disagree here.

In the real world, when two parties sign a contract, and the party delivering the service (Beams) pulls out prematurely, they are not entitled to a portion of the remaining unpaid contract. If he suffered an onsite injury (i.e. career ending knee injury during a game or training) then he would be entitled to compensation, but pull out for other reasons (mental health, or someone like Wines who gets injured water skiing) and it's not the other party's responsibility.

When Boyd retired, he left the remainder of his contract on the table. If Beams is going to retire, he cannot reasonably expect a payout from Collingwood

If you retire whilst contracted you shouldn't get a cent.

Beams will get some money, which is pathetic, he doesn't deserve a single dollar

What if the reason for retiring is due to mental health/physical injury caused from football?

If I am at work and suffer an injury or experience poor mental health due to my work, I don't forfeit my salary.

Beams will make a case that his mental health and well being deteriorated due to the fish bowl that is AFL in Melbourne.

here is an excerpt from the Hun article

"In one scenario, Beams could argue he is entitled to the entirety of the $1.5 million left on his contract, likening his mental health problems to a physical injury such as a career-ending knee problem."

IMO, Beams was vulnerable to experiencing challenges around his well-being. Let's face it, if any rookie/draftee presented at club interview with the history Beams had when Collingwood traded for him in 2018, every club would run a mile. Collingwood got sucked in by Beams and now find themselves in a position of giving up 2 first rounders and 2 million bucks for a guy who played 9 games.

Collingwood made the decision to trade their draft picks and agreed the value of Beams' contract. Collingwood should have to pay Beams his full contract amount, and it should count in their salary cap.

 

[AvantGardener]

What if the reason for retiring is due to mental health/physical injury caused from football?

If I am at work and suffer an injury or experience poor mental health due to my work, I don't forfeit my salary.

Beams will make a case that his mental health and well being deteriorated due to the fish bowl that is AFL in Melbourne.

here is an excerpt from the Hun article

"In one scenario, Beams could argue he is entitled to the entirety of the $1.5 million left on his contract, likening his mental health problems to a physical injury such as a career-ending knee problem."

IMO, Beams was vulnerable to experiencing challenges around his well-being. Let's face it, if any rookie/draftee presented at club interview with the history Beams had when Collingwood traded for him in 2018, every club would run a mile. Collingwood got sucked in by Beams and now find themselves in a position of giving up 2 first rounders and 2 million bucks for a guy who played 9 games.

Collingwood made the decision to trade their draft picks and agreed the value of Beams' contract. Collingwood should have to pay Beams his full contract amount, and it should count in their salary cap.

Yes you do forfeit it. If its an injury you then go onto workers comp. If its mental health you have to use your sick days which you only have so many of.

 

[markm106]

It’s an interesting one. I agree with FA stuff where the contract value is held against the club. But in other circumstances I don’t mind the player and club agreeing to a payout or no payout scenario. Depends on the circumstance. If the player is retiring due to MH or injury it would need to be determined if playing footy was a contributing factor.

 

[Capriati]

Yes you do forfeit it. If its an injury you then go onto workers comp. If its mental health you have to use your sick days which you only have so many of.

Nope.

If it is mental health that is either a) caused from work or b) a pre-existing condition exacerbated by work than it is work cover and the employee has their salary paid to them through the employers insurance.

I think people's answer to question asked in the original post depends on whether you consider AFL players "contractors" or "employees".

IMO they are employees of the club. They have a union, collective bargaining agreement and a prescribed dress code (uniform) determined by the club (the employer).

As such, an employee should not be financially disadvantaged due to injuries (mental/physical or otherwise) incurred as part of their service.

Just my two cents.

 

[AvantGardener]

Nope.

If it is mental health that is either a) caused from work or b) a pre-existing condition exacerbated by work than it is work cover and the employee has their salary paid to them through the employers insurance.

I think people's answer to question asked in the original post depends on whether you consider AFL players "contractors" or "employees".

IMO they are employees of the club. They have a union, collective bargaining agreement and a prescribed dress code (uniform) determined by the club (the employer).

As such, an employee should not be financially disadvantaged due to injuries (mental/physical or otherwise) incurred as part of their service.

Just my two cents.

As this thread was about Beams I skim read over the words 'due to work' in relation to the mental health part.

The AFL and not the club has paid out Jake King and Dane Swan for injuries. I would guess mental health from AFL would go under the same banner.

 

[Orange Agent]

You do realise that people are not objects right?

You've also not paid much attention recently if you think clubs can retire players without financial impact.

Hawks kept Langford on the rookie list for the year after he retired due to TPP requirements. Swans did the same with Tippett.

They were paying money to contracted players that had retired before the end of the contract. The agreed upon settlements had TPP impact and both used list positions on retired players and had to count money in the cap.

What kind of free hit are you imagining?

Tippett didn't come to the Swans party and wanted his full contract paid out, don't know the details of Langford but he couldn't have been on much coin, so sound like he did the same. This is exactly what I think should happen.

My club has just signed massive long term deals to a number of players, do you think everyone will just be ok with it if one 'retires' in the next year or 2 once salary cap pressure kicks in?

 

[Gralin]

Tippett didn't come to the Swans party and wanted his full contract paid out, don't know the details of Langford but he couldn't have been on much coin, so sound like he did the same. This is exactly what I think should happen.

My club has just signed massive long term deals to a number of players, do you think everyone will just be ok with it if one 'retires' in the next year or 2 once salary cap pressure kicks in?

Do you think they are going to just retire in the next year or two? Are you suggesting your club is going to retire them so they don't have to pay them and the players will just go along with it and leave large amounts of money on the table?

 

[Gunf]

If clubs want to pay out a contract let them but keep the salary cap e.g Sav signs a 5 year deal with Geelong tomorrow at 700k a year and retires within 2 years if Geeelong and sav come to an agreement in which he gets half of his remaining salary fine but his 700k a year for the 3 years left must stay on the salary cap. If clubs want to give players 5-6-7 years deals they have to be held accountable like the Buddy deal

 

[Kwality]

As this thread was about Beams I skim read over the words 'due to work' in relation to the mental health part.

The AFL and not the club has paid out Jake King and Dane Swan for injuries. I would guess mental health from AFL would go under the same banner.

How public is the AFL payment to King/Swann ? Interesting insurance connotations going forward.

 

[Virgin Dog]

What if the reason for retiring is due to mental health/physical injury caused from football?

If I am at work and suffer an injury or experience poor mental health due to my work, I don't forfeit my salary.

Beams will make a case that his mental health and well being deteriorated due to the fish bowl that is AFL in Melbourne.

here is an excerpt from the Hun article

"In one scenario, Beams could argue he is entitled to the entirety of the $1.5 million left on his contract, likening his mental health problems to a physical injury such as a career-ending knee problem."

IMO, Beams was vulnerable to experiencing challenges around his well-being. Let's face it, if any rookie/draftee presented at club interview with the history Beams had when Collingwood traded for him in 2018, every club would run a mile. Collingwood got sucked in by Beams and now find themselves in a position of giving up 2 first rounders and 2 million bucks for a guy who played 9 games.

Collingwood made the decision to trade their draft picks and agreed the value of Beams' contract. Collingwood should have to pay Beams his full contract amount, and it should count in their salary cap.

People who work on a contract basis don't just have the contract paid out if their mental health deteriorates. It's unfair to blame football for his mental health since you cannot objectively prove it was the cause (unlike a career ending knee injury).

Beams choosing to cut his career short should not mean Collingwood lose entirely.

Tom Boyd faced arguably more criticism and pressure than any other player in AFL history. He was copping abuse through the AFL media on a daily basis, yet when he decided to retire, he didn't kick up a stink and demand the Bulldogs pay him out. He left it all on the table and graciously retired, just like Beams should

 

[branedotorg]

List spaces and the salary cap mean it's in both parties to come to an agreement.

In soccer you get the odd player happy to sit out his contract in the reserves or not even playing after a fallout with management.

 

[Yojimbo]

Tom Boyd faced arguably more criticism and pressure than any other player in AFL history.

Bit chicken and egg theory there as no other player in AFL history had received a similar offer. People loved
telling me, but he won us a flag then why not pay the bloke out in full because as people loved to tell me
he won us a flag. Every situation is different and should be dealt with as an individual situation there is
no one size fits all generic solution.

 

[Capriati]

People who work on a contract basis don't just have the contract paid out if their mental health deteriorates. It's unfair to blame football for his mental health since you cannot objectively prove it was the cause (unlike a career ending knee injury).

Beams choosing to cut his career short should not mean Collingwood lose entirely.

Tom Boyd faced arguably more criticism and pressure than any other player in AFL history. He was copping abuse through the AFL media on a daily basis, yet when he decided to retire, he didn't kick up a stink and demand the Bulldogs pay him out. He left it all on the table and graciously retired, just like Beams should

Tom Boyd is a very decent person.

Expect Collingwood to have to pay some/most or maybe even all of his contract.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It's time the AFL made some rules regarding this. Due diligence is the buyers responsibility in everything outside of the AFL world. Buy a shitty used car that breaks down after a month, you are responsible for fixing it. Buy a house that starts falling apart after a year, you are responsible for fixing it/selling it for a loss. I actually find it odd the AFLPA and player managers have not had it written into the standard contract a minimum payment amount if the contract is terminated early. At a minimum, the club should be held to account and forced to pay a minimum 50% of the total contract under the salary cap. If it needs to spread over future years, so be it, but it costs you a list spot for every year that is done. Stop giving clubs a free hit by offering big, long term contracts and weasling their way out of them.

If you do that you’re simply giving clubs the power to terminate contracts and pay out 50%.

Just leave it as is. Contracts can only be terminated by mutual consent. That way the player has bargaining power.

 

[Orange Agent]

Do you think they are going to just retire in the next year or two? Are you suggesting your club is going to retire them so they don't have to pay them and the players will just go along with it and leave large amounts of money on the table?

Well this is what is happening hence why rules need to be brought in to stop the rort.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

People who work on a contract basis don't just have the contract paid out if their mental health deteriorates. It's unfair to blame football for his mental health since you cannot objectively prove it was the cause (unlike a career ending knee injury).

Beams choosing to cut his career short should not mean Collingwood lose entirely.

Tom Boyd faced arguably more criticism and pressure than any other player in AFL history. He was copping abuse through the AFL media on a daily basis, yet when he decided to retire, he didn't kick up a stink and demand the Bulldogs pay him out. He left it all on the table and graciously retired, just like Beams should

I’d suggest you have next to zero idea what either’s true situation is, neither what either financial settlement was / will be.