List Mgmt. Daniher Contract - illegal?

[Sainter1873]

I don’t understand the AFL’s obsession with creating these convoluted rules. It’s like they go out of their way to make things as complex as possible. Once they introduce a rule, they need to introduce more rules to re-balance the scales. It is never-ending. Stupid rules like compensation only lead to gaming.

The constant NGA rule tweaks really do make a mockery of the idea that the AFL understand the consequences of the rules they dream up. Twomey reported yesterday that they might now go back to a top 20 protected zone for NGA players. Talk about knee-jerk. They really do make rules on the run.

What they need to do is introduce pure free agency. Players out of contract are free to move to any club that wants them. No compensation. I don’t know why people are so afraid of this. Player movement is a good thing. It gives some power back to players who have their freedom limited to a large extent by the two mechanisms of equalisation, the salary cap and the draft.

These two mechanisms are very good at ensuring competitive balance over the medium and long term but the AFL need to stop compromising the draft and let it do its job. Academy and F/S ties reduce the draft’s ability to distribute talent to clubs that need it most. Scrap those ties and the draft works properly. Academies are important but players shouldn’t be tied. This would also get rid of the joke that is the points system.

I’d also look at other changes like publishing player salaries so that all parties have correct information and the market works efficiently. The salary floor could be lowered to give clubs more flexibility to go after FAs.

Whilst I’m at it I’d get rid of the rookie list and draft. That is no longer fit for purpose. One list of say 35-40 players whose salaries all go to the one cap would do. Require all clubs to actually draft a minimum of three players instead of using rookie upgrades.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

You're going to struggle to find any sporting competition in the world that's going to be 100% level for a myriad of reasons.

My suggestions are just two that would immediately see benefits to all teams in the league.



As explained above by Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods, the floor doesn't allow any clubs to actively entice players away from the others.

More player movement is good for the competition as a whole.

It’s as simple as front loading contracts. Carlton were probably paying 85% at times if you average out contracts.

 

[spenze]

Tom Morris has just tweeted that both teams are to lose their first and second round picks

Nothing mentioned about their ability to continue to serve alcohol though...

 

[Morbidly_Obese]

This is all irrelevant isnt it unless or until we know the terms of the contract extension? Joe played every game or close to it last year and did well. If he is on less than 750k for the extension, then it all looks pretty rotten. If it is 750k or better, then nothing to see here.

Joe played well last year but he's really only worth $700k/year when we signed him.

 

[Aramis]

Agreed this has been my thoughts on it since the beginning. Id like to the the club receiving the player lose their equivalent round pick to the FA compo, this will stop any underhand deals manipulating the draft like has occured here.

This is better idea than a compensation pick being generated out of thin air.

Unfortunately, I think it's only good in theory, in practice it is very difficult to accurately formulate how much 'compensation' someone is worth, not to mention how far away the recruiting teams actual pick might be from that formulated 'compensation'. It probably creates more problems than it solves.

Again, there should be no compensation. It should be abolished.

 

[Shooter#17]

This is better idea than a compensation pick being generated out of thin air.

Unfortunately, I think it's only good in theory, in practice it is very difficult to accurately formulate how much 'compensation' someone is worth, not to mention how far away the recruiting teams actual pick might be from that formulated 'compensation'. It probably creates more problems than it solves.

Again, there should be no compensation. It should be abolished.

You cant have no compensation and allow bottom clubs to lose their best players to top clubs while getting absolutely nothing in return.

 

[Underarm]

Agreed this has been my thoughts on it since the beginning. Id like to the the club receiving the player lose their equivalent round pick to the FA compo, this will stop any underhand deals manipulating the draft like has occured here.

That's not free agency. That's a trade.

 

[Shooter#17]

That's not free agency. That's a trade.

Definitely not a trade, compo still worked out by the ALF from parameters of the deal, club doing the bidding will just be aware that they will lose a pick in return in line with the contract they are offering the player, will stop the over the top deals for free agents pretty quickly.

 

[Timetoroarlike44]

So how would this have played out?

Lions want Daniher - dons want a good pick. So they collude?

Neither club knows exactly the formula that triggers a first round, so the collusion doesn't really make sense. The lions can't guarantee an outcome. Both clubs know Essendon want a first round pick, that's not secret. So the lions offer as much as they are prepared to in the hope it triggers the pick and Essendon doesn't match. Both clubs are guessing at that amount. You can't collude if you don't know the outcome. So I don't really get the case for collusion between the 2 clubs in this case.

The potential issue is for the lions to have as suggested had a package in mind, say 2.5m over 5 years, but given him a 3 year front loaded contract instead, with a smaller increase. If we did that and there is any evidence of that, I'd say yes that is against the rules. I suppose we'll find out.

But as for logical explanations otherwise - here was a player who was coming off a terrible few years with injury. Offering him 3 years on good money was a risk, but means you get the player free and hope he comes good. That was the lions making the most of AFL rules. Offering him 5 years would have been pretty risky stuff.

So with Daniher having played every game last year and having full pre-season, it's not exactly odd to then extend the contract, given he turns 29 at the end of this one. From his point of view he seems to very much enjoy being out of Melbourne so why not sign on?

The one thing missing so far that would raise eyebrows - if Daniher's extension is significantly less than his initial 3 year contract. That would seem iffy. I haven't seen that reported anywhere though?

 

[Ati Tude]

So how would this have played out?

Lions want Daniher - dons want a good pick. So they collude?

Neither club knows exactly the formula that triggers a first round, so the collusion doesn't really make sense. The lions can't guarantee an outcome. Both clubs know Essendon want a first round pick, that's not secret. So the lions offer as much as they are prepared to in the hope it triggers the pick and Essendon doesn't match. Both clubs are guessing at that amount. You can't collude if you don't know the outcome. So I don't really get the case for collusion between the 2 clubs in this case.

The potential issue is for the lions to have as suggested had a package in mind, say 2.5m over 5 years, but given him a 3 year front loaded contract instead, with a smaller increase. If we did that and there is any evidence of that, I'd say yes that is against the rules. I suppose we'll find out.

But as for logical explanations otherwise - here was a player who was coming off a terrible few years with injury. Offering him 3 years on good money was a risk, but means you get the player free and hope he comes good. That was the lions making the most of AFL rules. Offering him 5 years would have been pretty risky stuff.

So with Daniher having played every game last year and having full pre-season, it's not exactly odd to then extend the contract, given he turns 29 at the end of this one. From his point of view he seems to very much enjoy being out of Melbourne so why not sign on?

The one thing missing so far that would raise eyebrows - if Daniher's extension is significantly less than his initial 3 year contract. That would seem iffy. I haven't seen that reported anywhere though?

You make too many valid and sensible points. Not sure what you are doing on BF.

 

[Ceanag]

You make too many valid and sensible points. Not sure what you are doing on BF.

Obfuscating ... a trait more common to Essendon fans ...but it serves Brisbane supporters purpose here to deflect from the possible collusion and breaking of the rules.

 

[Yoda_]

Obfuscating ... a trait more common to Essendon fans ...but it serves Brisbane supporters purpose here to deflect from the possible collusion and breaking of the rules.

what rules are being broken here?

 

[Scotland]

AFL contract rules are a joke. If contracts aren't public and the FA compo formula remains a relative secret this stuff will keep happening.

If Brisbane signed Daniher to a 3 year $750k deal then pay him minimum wage after that who cares? It's not a 5 year deal, it's a 3 year deal and then a 2 year deal. So long as they don't try and pay him less than $750k per year within the first 3 years - which the AFL rules probably allow - then there's no issue.

The risk to Brisbane doing it this way is that Daniher can do a Brad Hill then decide after 3 years that $750k per year is actually pretty good and old out for more money or leave.

 

[Obeanie1]

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.

Its easy to police if the dimwitts at AFL House set the rules properly.

Rule 1. When FA compo results from a FA contract that contract cannot be amended.

Pretty simple. Didnt the AFL say and do exactly that with Franklin/ and the Swans?

 

[blueiris]

Its easy to police if the dimwitts at AFL House set the rules properly.

Rule 1. When FA compo results from a FA contract that contract cannot be amended.

Pretty simple. Didnt the AFL say and do exactly that with Franklin/ and the Swans?

Franklin was on a 9 year contract at a Million a season Sydney have asked the AFL if they can lower that rate in salary Daniher signed a 3 year Contract and has been given a 2 year contract extension Brisbane is still playing Joe $800k for the 3 years no one knows what he’s getting payed in those last 2 season

 

[Obeanie1]

Franklin was on a 9 year contract at a Million a season Sydney have asked the AFL if they can lower that rate in salary Daniher signed a 3 year Contract and has been given a 2 year contract extension Brisbane is still playing Joe $800k for the 3 years no one knows what he’s getting payed in those last 2 season

My understanding was the current contract was being amended and the $$$ spread out over more years. Could be wrong.

 

[Underarm]

Definitely not a trade, compo still worked out by the ALF from parameters of the deal, club doing the bidding will just be aware that they will lose a pick in return in line with the contract they are offering the player, will stop the over the top deals for free agents pretty quickly.

So a club is recieving a player and losing a trade pick in return. The only difference between this and the normal trade period is the value of the picks.

That's not free agency, and it would lead to less players getting where they want.

 

[Shooter#17]

So a club is recieving a player and losing a trade pick in return. The only difference between this and the normal trade period is the value of the picks.

That's not free agency, and it would lead to less players getting where they want.

well thats a perfect outcome which leads to contracts at actual market price, players currently are getting over the top contracts because the side getting them has no consequences for absurd contract terms.

 

[Scotland]

The AFL should just do away with compo picks.