Cyril Rioli retires, what about his contract and TPP?

[Gralin]

Well that's s lie because you could've matched and Buddy could've retired after six more years as a Hawk and you would not have had any excess to worry about because he'd stayed at the original club. You know, like Cyril.

if we'd matched and he'd stayed we would have been on the hook as well, also Cyril didn't come out of contract and nominate for free agency so no not like Cyril

 

[BF Tiger]

I missed it before, but the bolded is resoundingly incorrect. You really need to read the thread and get an understanding of RFA contracts, it has been explained multiple times in the thread. Either you have trouble understanding or you are dismal at trolling.

Just to be clear I'm not seeing this as a Hawthorn/Sydney issue but as an issue that could impact on any club.

I'll admit I don't understand fully RFA. I understand the need for Sydney (in this instance) to be liable, but what I don't see as fully fair as them being held responsible for an excessive number of years over and above what Hawthorn were prepared to offer, particularly in the instance where Buddy chooses to exit.

Buddy's manager may well have been aware as to what offers were on the table but that does not mean either Sydney or Hawthorn we're aware. In fact I'd view that as confidential until such point that Hawthorn were offered the chance to counter.

And of course Buddy's manager would've been foxing for the longest possible and most financially lucrative contract for his client, so who knows what he may have suggested to Sydney regarding what may have been required to prise him away from the Hawks.

So if Sydney offered nine and Hawthorn offered five then I think Sydney should be liable for six, i.e. one year longer than what Hawthorn were prepared to offer. This would still have safeguarded against an unrealistic contract offer but also not impacted on Sydney for an excessive number of years if Buddy had walked away after three or four years.

This is mostly moot anyway, as RFA will be abolished sooner rather than later.

 

[Wesley2]

Just to be clear I'm not seeing this as a Hawthorn/Sydney issue but as an issue that could impact on any club.

I'll admit I don't understand fully RFA. I understand the need for Sydney (in this instance) to be liable, but what I don't see as fully fair as them being held responsible for an excessive number of years over and above what Hawthorn were prepared to offer, particularly in the instance where Buddy chooses to exit.

Buddy's manager may well have been aware as to what offers were on the table but that does not mean either Sydney or Hawthorn we're aware. In fact I'd view that as confidential until such point that Hawthorn were offered the chance to counter.

And of course Buddy's manager would've been foxing for the longest possible and most financially lucrative contract for his client, so who knows what he may have suggested to Sydney regarding what may have been required to prise him away from the Hawks.

So if Sydney offered nine and Hawthorn offered five then I think Sydney should be liable for six, i.e. one year longer than what Hawthorn were prepared to offer. This would still have safeguarded against an unrealistic contract offer but also not impacted on Sydney for an excessive number of years if Buddy had walked away after three or four years.

This is mostly moot anyway, as RFA will be abolished sooner rather than later.

Why should the Swans be relieved of the whole contract if Buddy retires early? Why is it not "fully fair"?

 

[Gralin]

Just to be clear I'm not seeing this as a Hawthorn/Sydney issue but as an issue that could impact on any club.

I'll admit I don't understand fully RFA. I understand the need for Sydney (in this instance) to be liable, but what I don't see as fully fair as them being held responsible for an excessive number of years over and above what Hawthorn were prepared to offer, particularly in the instance where Buddy chooses to exit.

Buddy's manager may well have been aware as to what offers were on the table but that does not mean either Sydney or Hawthorn we're aware. In fact I'd view that as confidential until such point that Hawthorn were offered the chance to counter.

And of course Buddy's manager would've been foxing for the longest possible and most financially lucrative contract for his client, so who knows what he may have suggested to Sydney regarding what may have been required to prise him away from the Hawks.

So if Sydney offered nine and Hawthorn offered five then I think Sydney should be liable for six, i.e. one year longer than what Hawthorn were prepared to offer. This would still have safeguarded against an unrealistic contract offer but also not impacted on Sydney for an excessive number of years if Buddy had walked away after three or four years.

This is mostly moot anyway, as RFA will be abolished sooner rather than later.

Why should Sydney not be liable for the contract they entered with open eyes? The AFL told them before they approved the deal they would be on the hook for the full 9 years no matter what and they still chose to go ahead with the deal. Why doe what Hawthorn would have offered matter?

 

[Bombfire]

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.

Seems like a lot of dough for Cyril to forgo- let’s hope the Hawks make full and true disclosure of any funds that may find their way to third parties.

 

[Messenger]

Seems like a lot of dough for Cyril to forgo- let’s hope the Hawks make full and true disclosure of any funds that may find their way to third parties.

Let's hope they don't so you've got something to froth over for a few months.

 

[Bombfire]

Let's hope they don't so you've got something to froth over for a few months.

I won’t be the only one frothing if they don’t.

 

[Messenger]

Can’t wait. Was there anything to disclose when Jobe retired?

 

[Sixpence]

Seems like a lot of dough for Cyril to forgo- let’s hope the Hawks make full and true disclosure of any funds that may find their way to third parties.

Why should they? Why do you feel you're entitled to that information?

 

[BF Tiger]

Can’t wait. Was there anything to disclose when Jobe retired?

Please don't tell me there were more drugs.

 

[Messenger]

Why should they? Why do you feel you're entitled to that information?

Well, no team can be THAT successful without breaking rules, you see. Meanwhile your own team is honest as the day is long.....

Please don't tell me there were more drugs.

Oh.....

 

[Taylor]

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.

Free agency contracts are locked in because they have an influence from the system that applies to the entire AFL. The contract creates a draft pick directly linked to it's value. That pick is created and then changes the trading and draft landscape.

 

[Bombfire]

Why should they? Why do you feel you're entitled to that information?

It's not me in particular that would be entitled to that sort of information, but certainly the TPP review panel would feel the Hawks are obliged to provide it.

 

[Bombfire]

Can’t wait. Was there anything to disclose when Jobe retired?

I could be wrong but Jobe retired without forgoing $1.3m, so not relevant.

 

[Bombfire]

Well, no team can be THAT successful without breaking rules, you see. Meanwhile your own team is honest as the day is long.....

Oh.....

Silly thing to say.
We've all got skeletons in the cupboard. Just like Alan Jeans declared all those years ago.

 

[Wesley2]

Seems like a lot of dough for Cyril to forgo- let’s hope the Hawks make full and true disclosure of any funds that may find their way to third parties.

Yep, Rioli will be cruising around the Tiwis in a brand new Audi, fishing out the window

 

[Bombfire]

Yep, Rioli will be cruising around the Tiwis in a brand new Audi, fishing out the window

Flashy player, flashy car?

 

[Wesley2]

Flashy player, flashy car?

I hope he opts for a 4x4 model

 

[BF Tiger]

Yep, Rioli will be cruising around the Tiwis in a brand new Audi, fishing out the window

Flashy player, flashy car?

This would be better.

 

[Bombfire]

This would be better.
View attachment 523141

That will cause a few headaches for the TPP review staff...