Traded Adam Treloar [traded with #26, #33 and #42 to Bulldogs for #14 and 2021 R2]

[Footy Smarts]

View attachment 1026596

NO! You mean the final outcome is what anyone with the slightest bit of logic could see from a mile away?

 

[Marcel Proust]

One of Treloar or Ben Brown will be a premiership player in a little over a week, in a season where their former teams finished 17th and 18th.

Funny how things work out.

At least north are not paying browns contract. As far as I know

 

[Ants]

At least north are not paying browns contract. As far as I know

Brown's last contract had ended. You can only pay for a contract when it started with your own club and is transferred with the player.

 

[The_Steadier]

Brown's last contract had ended. You can only pay for a contract when it started with your own club and is transferred with the player.

No contracts ever actually transfer.


If a contracted player moves clubs, they sign a brand new contract with their new club and their old contract is terminated by mutual consent.

Sometimes it looks like a contract has been transferred (because the new contract is the same size and length as what remained on the old contract).

But it is a brand new contract with the new club.

 

[Ants]

No contracts ever actually transfer.


If a contracted player moves clubs, they sign a brand new contract with their new club and their old contract is terminated by mutual consent.

Sometimes it looks like a contract has been transferred (because the new contract is the same size and length as what remained on the old contract).

But it is a brand new contract with the new club.

Yes, that's how it technically works.

But I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to sign a new contract with a player during trade week, then trade them, and pay a chunk of their salary at the new club.

 

[The_Steadier]

Yes, that's how it technically works.

But I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to sign a new contract with a player during trade week, then trade them, and pay a chunk of their salary at the new club.

Player contracts are tripartite- the AFL is also a signatory (along with the club and player) meaning every player contract effectively needs AFL approval.

Of course if a player was potentially on the trade table, naturally the AFL wouldn't sign a new contract for a player during trade week if there was any whiff of them being traded after that.
In fact the AFL probably have a rule where they don't sign any player contracts during trade week- and only sign trade deals.

But why would any club NEED or want to sign a new contract with an existing player... and then trade them a couple of days later?

 

[Ants]

But why would any club NEED or want to sign a new contract with an existing player... and then trade them a couple of days later?

Because the point I was making was that since Brown's contract had ended last year, it was/is impossible for North to be paying any of his new contract.

Also, some people raise the possibility of clubs paying part of a players' contract all the time to get a better deal, without realising that can only occur if the player is currently contracted.