Cyril Rioli retires, what about his contract and TPP?

The_Irony

Senior List
May 22, 2014
212
590
AFL Club
Collingwood
Retirement would also include a discussion about his future and the future of his club would it not, fellow BigFooty poster?

His future yes. His clubs future depends.

Just find it a bit disrespectful that we are starting discussions about his salary cap rather than discussing his great career.

You can make a new thread about his salary
 

SilentHunter_

Cancelled
10k Posts
Sep 15, 2014
14,424
17,738
Terra firma
AFL Club
Sydney
His future yes. His clubs future depends.

Just find it a bit disrespectful that we are starting discussions about his salary cap rather than discussing his great career.

You can make a new thread about his salary
No need to make a big deal out of a passing question I would've thought. Besides everyone gave their respects for his career anyway.
 
Well that's dodgy if true. But then again this is the AFL.
Not dodgy at all. A rule that was brought in to stop exactly what Sydney (or any club) may do and that is blow everyone else out of the water with a free agent contract offer which no one else could match.
 

SilentHunter_

Cancelled
10k Posts
Sep 15, 2014
14,424
17,738
Terra firma
AFL Club
Sydney
Not dodgy at all. A rule that was brought in to stop exactly what Sydney (or any club) may do and that is blow everyone else out of the water with a free agent contract offer which no one else could match.
Well this will be my last reply to this topic. But it is incredibly stupid that you can sign a long contract with your original club and then retire without any consequences for the club itself, why are FA signings being punished for long contracts when one club players aren't? Apart from all the romanticism that makes no sense.
 

Wesley2

Premiership Player
May 22, 2016
3,154
5,645
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Well this will be my last reply to this topic. But it is incredibly stupid that you can sign a long contract with your original club and then retire without any consequences for the club itself, why are FA signings being punished for long contracts when one club players aren't? Apart from all the romanticism that makes no sense.

Stop spamming and go start a salary thread.
 

MarcusP2

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2009
13,038
10,468
AFL Club
Adelaide
Well this will be my last reply to this topic. But it is incredibly stupid that you can sign a long contract with your original club and then retire without any consequences for the club itself, why are FA signings being punished for long contracts when one club players aren't? Apart from all the romanticism that makes no sense.
It depends on the financial settlement. Whatever they pay him out has to be included in the salary cap (hence it's possible Tippett will still be on Sydney's list next year). But they can bring it forward.
 
Aug 9, 2017
18,572
47,085
Penguin
AFL Club
Tasmania
Other Teams
Hurricanes, Panthers
Well this will be my last reply to this topic. But it is incredibly stupid that you can sign a long contract with your original club and then retire without any consequences for the club itself, why are FA signings being punished for long contracts when one club players aren't? Apart from all the romanticism that makes no sense.
It's to stop a club offering huge $$$ and 10 year deals knowing they are never going to play the last few years. It's not hard to understand.
 
Well that's dodgy if true. But then again this is the AFL.
It’s not true, don’t know where he got that idea from, we still have Chris Yarran in our contract after he retired and he wasn’t a free agent.
 
What do you mean? His retirement cuts his club short, as he had 2 years remaining on his contract. Possibly 2 years of salary that the club may have to find moving forward.

As I stated he has been a great servant of the club.

It will all depend on if he is going to be paid the remaining years. If so then it will stay on the TPP. If he is forgoing that money (his choice to leave after all) then it would create space.
 
May 25, 2006
63,607
44,446
Beach
AFL Club
Collingwood
It will all depend on if he is going to be paid the remaining years. If so then it will stay on the TPP. If he is forgoing that money (his choice to leave after all) then it would create space.

Whether hes paid is irrelevant imo. Its the risk the club takes and they should have to carry the salary cap regardless of whether hes being paid.

Just like if Franklin retires six years into his nine year contract. Swans would rightly have to carry the burden of the last three years otherwise it would unfair abuse of TPP rules. May as well sign them all on ten year contracts!!!
 

Wesley2

Premiership Player
May 22, 2016
3,154
5,645
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Whether hes paid is irrelevant imo. Its the risk the club takes and they should have to carry the salary cap regardless of whether hes being paid.

Just like if Franklin retires six years into his nine year contract. Swans would rightly have to carry the burden of the last three years.

FFS

Franklin's nine year offer directly affected the Hawks list management. If it doesn't get paid in full Hawks would have claim that there was dishonesty in the deal, and may have matched a lower offer but were never given the opportunity, as was their right in a restricted free agent deal.

If Hawthorn match then Buddy decides to stay with Hawthorn or Swans have to stump up a trade for him, and pay fair market value for the best forward in the game in the form of picks and/or players.

Rioli's deal only affects the Hawks. Any negotiated payout will be included in the TPP, and I feel the Hawks will be generous with Rioli because he is family, but I doubt he'll get the full 2 years.
 
Last edited:
Jun 28, 2013
31,751
47,830
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Whether hes paid is irrelevant imo. Its the risk the club takes and they should have to carry the salary cap regardless of whether hes being paid.

Just like if Franklin retires six years into his nine year contract. Swans would rightly have to carry the burden of the last three years otherwise it would unfair abuse of TPP rules. May as well sign them all on ten year contracts!!!
o_O
 
FFS

Franklin's nine year offer directly affected the Hawks list management. If it doesn't get paid in full Hawks would have claim that there was dishonesty in the deal, and may have matched a lower offer but were never given the opportunity, as was their right in a restricted free agent deal.

If Hawthorn match then Buddy decides to stay with Hawthorn or Swans have to stump up a trade for him, and pay fair market value for the best forward in the game in the form of picks and/or players.

Rioli's deal only affects the Hawks. Any negotiated payout will be included in the TPP, and I feel the Hawks will be generous with Rioli because he is family, but I doubt he'll get the full 2 years.
Just quoting this for clarity's sake....

If a club's player retires unexpectedly, it only that club's business. There is no skull-duggery involved, because no club would offer a player 10 years at millions, because that player could happily accept it, and clog the list for years after they were no good. Contracts negotiated between a player and a club, are, by definition, genuine, because both parties can be held to it by the other.

The RFA free agency rules suddenly bring in the spectre of fake, public offers, that are officially listed with the AFL, that are made purely to dissuade the original club from matching, when both parties know the true agreed contract is something different..

The Swans huge offer was an example of this. It was unprecedented purely in the (correct) assumption that the Hawks wouldn't match it, and force a trade

If you are enticing a free agent, the offer MUST be genuine, otherwise there is a chance of deliberate corruption of the 'right-to-match-offer' RFA arrangement. It allows for collusion between player agents and clubs to bypass the original club's FA rights. That's why the salary cap space stays, regardless of early retirement.
 
Last edited:
Well this will be my last reply to this topic. But it is incredibly stupid that you can sign a long contract with your original club and then retire without any consequences for the club itself, why are FA signings being punished for long contracts when one club players aren't? Apart from all the romanticism that makes no sense.
I'm sure others have already responded but here goes anyway.

When a player not signed under restricted free agency decides to retire it is a matter between the club and the player not honoring the rest of the contract. I wouldn't be surprised if we still have some commitment to pay out Rioli next year, though it will be an amount negotiated between the club and Rioli's manager.

With regards to a restricted free agent, the goal is to make a contract valuable in such a way that the original club either cannot, or is not inclined to match. This can be done by either offering a large contract offer per year, or a long contract offer that the existing club isn't prepared to match. There is nothing wrong with this, however if rules weren't put in place around restricted free agent contracts, players (or player managers) would manipulate the situation by offering a contract that neither the player or destination club have any intent on honoring just so a player can get to a club of choice without having to do it via a trade.

Imagine the scenario where player A is offered a 9 year contract valued at 10.2m, with the original club only prepared to match if the offer was 5 years valued at 5.5m. Player A walks to destination club as a free agent. After the player is at the club, the contract is renegotiated at 5 years for 5.5m. Do you think this is fair on the original club, when the destination club had no intention of honoring the contract that was used to get the player without having to trade for him, but would have matched the newly negotiated contract?

If you don't get it after this, then I can't help you.

Edit: This rule also applies to drafted players who name a price outside of the standard minimum price when entering a draft. As Kurt Tippett was selected in the pre-season draft, Sydney have an obligation to meet the entirety of the original contract which I believe also expires in 2020.
 
Last edited:
Jun 28, 2013
31,751
47,830
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I'm sure others have already responded but here goes anyway.

When a player not signed under restricted free agency decides to retire it is a matter between the club and the player not honoring the rest of the contract. I wouldn't be surprised if we still have some commitment to pay out Rioli next year, though it will be an amount negotiated between the club and Rioli's manager.

With regards to a restricted free agent, the goal is to make a contract valuable in such a way that the original club either cannot, or is not inclined to match. This can be done by either offering a large contract offer per year, or a long contract offer that the existing club isn't prepared to match. There is nothing wrong with this, however if rules weren't put in place around restricted free agent contracts, players (or player managers) would manipulate the situation by offering a contract that neither the player or destination club have any intent on honoring just so a player can get to a club of choice without having to do it via a trade.

Imagine the scenario where player A is offered a 9 year contract valued at 10.2m, with the original club only prepared to match if the offer was 5 years valued at 5.5m. Player A walks to destination club as a free agent. After the player is the club, the contract is renegotiated at 5 years for 5.5m. Do you think this is fair on the original club, when the destination club had no intention of honoring the contract that was used to get the player without having to trade for him, but would have matched the newly negotiated contract?

If you don't get it after this, then I can't help you.
Suspect some don’t want to - until someone retires from their club early
 

SilentHunter_

Cancelled
10k Posts
Sep 15, 2014
14,424
17,738
Terra firma
AFL Club
Sydney
Imagine the scenario where player A is offered a 9 year contract valued at 10.2m, with the original club only prepared to match if the offer was 5 years valued at 5.5m. Player A walks to destination club as a free agent. After the player is at the club, the contract is renegotiated at 5 years for 5.5m. Do you think this is fair on the original club, when the destination club had no intention of honoring the contract that was used to get the player without having to trade for him, but would have matched the newly negotiated contract?
Thanks for the explanation but what if Player A retires out of his own volition rather than a renegotiation of contract? Is it the same situation as it is with Rioli right now? i.e. it comes down to an agreement between the club and the player?
 
May 25, 2006
63,607
44,446
Beach
AFL Club
Collingwood
I'm sure others have already responded but here goes anyway.

When a player not signed under restricted free agency decides to retire it is a matter between the club and the player not honoring the rest of the contract. I wouldn't be surprised if we still have some commitment to pay out Rioli next year, though it will be an amount negotiated between the club and Rioli's manager.

With regards to a restricted free agent, the goal is to make a contract valuable in such a way that the original club either cannot, or is not inclined to match. This can be done by either offering a large contract offer per year, or a long contract offer that the existing club isn't prepared to match. There is nothing wrong with this, however if rules weren't put in place around restricted free agent contracts, players (or player managers) would manipulate the situation by offering a contract that neither the player or destination club have any intent on honoring just so a player can get to a club of choice without having to do it via a trade.

Imagine the scenario where player A is offered a 9 year contract valued at 10.2m, with the original club only prepared to match if the offer was 5 years valued at 5.5m. Player A walks to destination club as a free agent. After the player is the club, the contract is renegotiated at 5 years for 5.5m. Do you think this is fair on the original club, when the destination club had no intention of honoring the contract that was used to get the player without having to trade for him, but would have matched the newly negotiated contract?

If you don't get it after this, then I can't help you.

Are these the actual rules or your interpretation of what you think the rules are? Personally I dont know the rules but I would assume and hope the rules should apply equally regardless of whether FA comes into play. If you sign a player for X years then should you carry his salary in your cap for all of those years, regardless of whether he sees out his contract or even gets paid. The only exception is if he goes to another club in which you'd only have to carry the difference (if any) between his old contract and the lower new one.

What if Hawthorn had matched Sydneys offer (hence a nine year contract) and he retired after five years? Would the Hawks have to carry last four years of the contract in their TPP?
 
Back