List Mgmt. Daniher Contract - illegal?

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Yeah… that’s not how it works.
You realise clubs have come out openly and said they’d match if they weren’t happy with compensation?

Essendon has nothing to do with Brisbane contracts, no matter how excited you might get at the possibility.

They DO have something to do with it if their comments altered Brisbane's initial deal. You might not be able to wrap your head around that and the AFL will most likely say nothing to see here, but if this went into a court of law, Ess would be very well implicated.
I don't really care who the clubs are that are involved, I'm discussing the general situation. Same rules would apply to my club.

 

[Underarm]

Redirect Notice

As expected, most clubs are up in arms about the Daniher contract extension.
It goes against the spirit of free agency, and at the time was clearly an attempt to get around the compensation rules.

If this was the crows, it would be an automatic draft pick sanction.

Should be stripping of first round picks for both the bombers and Brisbane if the AFL cares about fairness.

This is nothing like what Adelaide did.

 

[Underarm]

Brisbane should be allowed to extend the contract, but not restructure the first three years.

It’s a dodgy deal but tough to police and not sure any rules were actually broken.

They're not. They're just severely underpaying him in years 4 and 5.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

So what will the AFL do to prevent this? Flat out ban contract extensions for the duration of the initial free agent contract?

The problem is the compo pick. It creates a reward that encourages contract manipulation, which then results in draft manipulation.

 

[citizen-erased]

If it was found to be dodgy, it would be for collusion. If Ess made comment that they'd be matching and forcing a trade if their compensation wasn't adequate, that's implicates them if it's viewed as draft tampering.
The only way Ess are clean is if they stay quiet, wait for the Lions to present their deal to Joe, then decide whether they match or take the compo.

yeah, that's not draft tampering

That's making our intention known to a suitor.
If Brisbane all along planned to offer enough to dodge a trade situation, then would re-negotiate it midway to something closer to what they were initially offering, that's on them.
Not sure how you police it, but that's the AFL's problem.

Free agency isn't a silent/blind bidding contest.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

I really like it when a victim complex is justified, so I agree with sanctioning the Crows for this one.

 

[EssendonPride]

They DO have something to do with it if their comments altered Brisbane's initial deal. You might not be able to wrap your head around that and the AFL will most likely say nothing to see here, but if this went into a court of law, Ess would be very well implicated.
I don't really care who the clubs are that are involved, I'm discussing the general situation. Same rules would apply to my club.

I know it’s fun to pretend, but it’s clear you have absolutely zero idea how it works.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

They're not. They're just severely underpaying him in years 4 and 5.

If that is the case then I don’t see an issue.

 

[Dazb86]

There's only one result out of this. Crows to be heavily sanctioned.

 

[MF]

So what will the AFL do to prevent this?

Implement some poorly thought out knee jerk reaction that will result in it's own complications which will need to be addressed next year.

 

[citizen-erased]

Still think that leaves room for dodgyness. E.g. Club words up player, we're going to front load your deal 900k for 3 years to keep your club happy with compo then extend you for another 2 years at 400k each year. Ultimately you get $3.5 million over 5.

Get rid of the carrot to be dodgy.

i think at that point, you need to look at whether free agency can still be viable.
im not sure it can without compensation picks.

 

[iBeng]

The problem is the compo pick. It creates a reward that encourages contract manipulation, which then results in draft manipulation.

But how are the Lions at fault for recruiting someone on agreed terms, then after a better than expected first year of the contract decide to extend the players stay? You cant retroactively award Essendon more compensation, right? There was every chance Daniher could have had a shit year with injury and form and the contract would have remained its initial duration to be negotiated at the end.

Seems that the Lions will be punished for rewarding a recruited players good form?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

But how are the Lions at fault for recruiting someone on agreed terms, then after a better than expected first year of the contract decide to extend the players stay? You cant retroactively award Essendon more compensation, right? There was every chance Daniher could have had a sh*t year with injury and form and the contract would have remained its initial duration to be negotiated at the end.

Seems that the Lions will be punished for rewarding a recruited players good form?

That's based on the assumption that the extension was purely due to a good year. Maybe it was, but implication here is that the Lions were always planning on giving him the extra 2 years, regardless of how he went, and only gave him the 3 year deal to fudge the compo system. That's the whole point of it being brought up.
Like I said, if the extra 2 years is on similar coin to the first 3, then it would appear to be a legit extension, as it wouldn't have resulted in less compo for Essendon.
If the extension is on considerably less money, after a very good year, then it would seem to indicate a potentially dodgy deal designed to inflate his average salary for the first three years, then bring it back to their original planned 5 year average after the compo has been sorted.
If there was a verbal agreement outside of the signed contract, it should definitely be looked at.

 

[juss]

i think at that point, you need to look at whether free agency can still be viable.
im not sure it can without compensation picks.

Isn't that how it works in the majority of professional leagues elsewhere?
The benefit is cap room.

 

[Tom14]

or lock contracts that result in a compensation pick.
i.e. Daniher's 3 years should be locked in. He can negotiate an extension but the 3 stay as is.

I'd be pretty confident that would be the case right? If the extension tries to amend those 3 years, then the AFL should just reject. Its the same for the buddy contract which the Swans couldn't ever amend/adjust for integrity purposes.

If its just a couple of extra years at the end on lower $ though, I'm sorry but that is perfectly legal, and totally consistent with contract extensions for older players (the 2 extra years are for his 30 and 31 year old seasons).

 

[citizen-erased]

Isn't that how it works in the majority of professional leagues elsewhere?
The benefit is cap room.

i think the issue we have is we don't always have players going for the payday.
run the risk of players sacrificing cash for glory. Could end up with a pinch at the top.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I'd be pretty confident that would be the case right? If the extension tries to amend those 3 years, then the AFL should just reject. Its the same for the buddy contract which the Swans couldn't ever amend/adjust for integrity purposes.

If its just a couple of extra years at the end on lower $ though, I'm sorry but that is perfectly legal, and totally consistent with contract extensions for older players (the 2 extra years are for his 30 and 31 year old seasons).

Generally speaking, sure, but there's other things to consider.

• The supposed original offer of 5 years
• The supposed comments from Essendon that they'd match if compo wasn't' sufficient, which then altered the original contract
• The extension 1 year into a 3 year deal (that doesn't happen a lot, but is usually a player who has been at the same club for while, after a couple of years and enough to get them through to free agency)
• Why would a player lock themselves into a deal on less money, in two years from now, after arguably one of the best seasons of their career, simply because they'll be a bit older by then?

 

[juss]

i think the issue we have is we don't always have players going for the payday.
run the risk of players sacrificing cash for glory. Could end up with a pinch at the top.

Compensation doesn't reduce that risk, so it's moot.
E.g. even with compo, if your scenario was the case, The Demons could still target all these FAs who want to chase glory to build a super team at the expense of a pay day.

It doesn't happen.

 

[Elixuh]

Generally speaking, sure, but there's other things to consider.

• The supposed original offer of 5 years
• The supposed comments from Essendon that they'd match if compo wasn't' sufficient, which then altered the original contract
• The extension 1 year into a 3 year deal (that doesn't happen a lot, but is usually a player who has been at the same club for while, after a couple of years and enough to get them through to free agency)
• Why would a player lock themselves into a deal on less money, in two years from now, after arguably one of the best seasons of their career, simply because they'll be a bit older by then?

What rule does any of that offend?

 

[The 747]

Once again the AFL gets itself outsmarted by the clubs. You would think they would learn one day....

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

What rule does any of that offend?

I don't know all of the rules, but I'd imagine it would fit under draft tampering.
There's a reason why some clubs are allegedly asking the question and the AFL reportedly looking into it.
Brisbane have probably shot themselves in the foot by doing the extension so quickly. They should have waited until halfway through his 3rd year, when he would actually be up for a new contract. Wouldn't have looked half as sus.

 

[Sentinel]

It seems pretty simple to me, and in reality was bound to happen eventually. With compo the way it is, being a non-zero sum game, there was always going to be a point where the two clubs involved in a FA transaction would exploit the situation to the detriment of 16 other clubs.

Even assuming this is what happened here, there's probably a lack of evidence and enough plausible deniability for any possible collusion to go through unpunished.

Get better rules, Gil, and this won't happen.

 

[citizen-erased]

Compensation doesn't reduce that risk, so it's moot.
E.g. even with compo, if your scenario was the case, The Demons could still target all these FAs who want to chase glory to build a super team at the expense of a pay day.

It doesn't happen.

true. i think the current system delicately balances it so that teams benefit

Classic example - Hawks take Frawley, Dees get to sign Brayshaw along with Petracca and win a flag 8 years later.
they don't get the pick, they're left with trying to attract talent to a bottom club whilst paying a salary floor.

I don't mind the current system. I do wonder if there's a case to compensate the rest of the league...i.e Essendon get pick 8 for Daniher...should Brisbane lose pick 17 to balance it out?

 

[legend166]

Basing compensation on the new salary/contract offered was always going to end up with something like this.

Honestly better to come up with some sort of algorithm completely out of control from either team, like selections in the AA team/squad, Brownlow votes, heck even fantasy points. None of it's perfect, but at least it's not controlled by the clubs.

 

[The 747]

Basing compensation on the new salary/contract offered was always going to end up with something like this.

Honestly better to come up with some sort of algorithm completely out of control from either team, like selections in the AA team/squad, Brownlow votes, heck even fantasy points. None of it's perfect, but at least it's not controlled by the clubs.

Easy, no compensation for FA or RFA. Use the cap space to sign someone else.