List Mgmt. Daniher Contract - illegal?

[Tippett2Goal]

Even if it was a nudge, nudge, wink, wink we will extend you to 5 years but we need to sign you for 3, technically no AFL laws are broken, and clubs finding loopholes in the rules are nothing new.

It all comes back to compensation coming at no cost to the gaining club and hurting 16 clubs not involved in the deal.

Maybe we can ban Essendon and Brisbane from trading for a couple of years for not breaking any rules...

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

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.

Brisbane maybe, I don't know what Essendon did wrong ...

 

[Toump Ass]

It's never too soon to make jokes about Adelaide.

 

[Libbaaaa]

If they just waited until the end of this year and extended him no one would have batted an eye lid. But for some reason they give him 2 years on top his existing 2 right now, just inviting scrutiny on the deal. There would have definitely been a wink wink agreement between the two clubs (something all 18 clubs when it comes to this stuff). What is the outcome? Hopefully both teams lose their 1st round picks into perpetuity. Realistically, nothing.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I don't think there is a material impact here. The salary is locked into those three years.

While we don't know the minute details of the deals, if it was a scenario where Lions originally offered Joe (and he agrees in principal to) say 5 years averaging $600k (just spitballing, the actual figures don't matter), then Ess said 'that won't get us high enough compo, if you run with that, we're going to match and force a trade'.
Then they change the deal to 3 years averaging $800k to trigger higher compo. Then at the end of his first year, extend his contract by 2 years @ $300k. The first 3 years don't change, but they've managed to give him his original agreed deal of 5 year averaging $600k, while manipulating the compo system so they don't have to use draft capital in a trade. You don't think that's wrong? Regardless of whether 'every club does it' or 'every club operates under the same rules' and regardless of the two clubs involved in this specific instance.

If it's simply a case of the Lions being cautious on an often injured player and then being happy with his return in his first year and extending his contract on reasonable coin that is close to what he's currently on, then there's nothing to see here.
Why would a player extend their current contract, if they're on good money, this far out from being out of contract, unless it was in their interests to do so?
The only real answers are that he's cashing in on a good year and getting some good money for those extra years, or that it was a prearranged agreement where he takes bigger money on less years, then gets extra years at less money.

 

[1990crow]

I'd totally forgotten about that.

Even better was when the Crows had an assistant coach suspended (Dean Bailey) because he deliberately lost games at the Dees, while the Dees were found not guilty of deliberately losing games and given a fine that the AFL paid for anyway along with a new coach in Paul Roos.

That was bloody hilarious.

If this doesn't prove there is a real bias for clubs outside Victoria, I don't know what else does.

 

[1990crow]

Brisbane maybe, I don't know what Essendon did wrong ...

Advised Brisbane they would match if the deal was over 5 years but lower salary.
That's draft manipulation to receive a top ten pick.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

If this doesn't prove there is a real bias for clubs outside Victoria, I don't know what else does.

At the risk of derailing the thread, to what end? The current CEO is from SA, they're desperately trying to grow the game in all other states, there's too many teams in VIC, they'd love to get teams in TAS and NT. 10 teams are sharing 3 venues (in reality it's 9 teams sharing 2 venues), so VIC clubs only have a home ground advantage against half the league. There's nothing left of the VFL.
The growth (money) is from outside of VIC. There is no relevant argument or business plan that revolves around keeping VIC happy at the expense of everyone else.

 

[V23]

Essington trying to manipulate rules and regulations? Shocked to be sitting here.

 

[Taylor]

You don't think that's wrong?

I don't. The club offering the FA deal carries all the risk, the player can move on as soon as they are done for more cash, Brisbane can't ease the deal in the salary cap. The money is allocated and locked in.

It's totally different to offering Martin huge cash to get to the Blues in the PSD and then signing an extension to even the money out.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I don't. The club offering the FA deal carries all the risk, the player can move on as soon as they are done for more cash, Brisbane can't ease the deal in the salary cap. The money is allocated and locked in.

Fair enough. I can't force you to think of it in the same way that I do. I can see your point, but I think the risk should come prior to that. If a FA/RFA wants to move to another club, it should be between the player and new club to agree on a deal that suits both of them. In terms of a RFA, the new club then has to hope that the compo is enough to satisfy the existing club. That's where the risk should be. The risk is that you value the guy you're signing as much as the team losing him. The other team should have zero involvement until the other two parties have agreed to terms and it's been signed off by the AFL and a compo pick decided. That should then get presented to the current team, who then decides whether to match or accept the compo. That way both sides have equal risk. The current team risks matching the offer and not being able to reach a trade agreement and being stuck with a player for (in this instance) 5 years, who doesn't want to be there and might not give his all and ask for a trade every year. Meanwhile, the Lions risk losing their man, or giving up more than they'd hoped in draft collateral.

It's totally different to offering Martin huge cash to get to the Blues in the PSD and then signing an extension to even the money out.

Not sure how this is relevant? Martin is into the 3rd year of a 5 year deal and nothing has changed. I actually didn't like that whole scenario and would've preferred to trade for him. I think most sane neutrals thought our offer was reasonable, and his injuries and output would probably support that.

 

[Taylor]

Fair enough. I can't force you to think of it in the same way that I do. I can see your point, but I think the risk should come prior to that. If a FA/RFA wants to move to another club, it should be between the player and new club to agree on a deal that suits both of them. In terms of a RFA, the new club then has to hope that the compo is enough to satisfy the existing club. That's where the risk should be. The risk is that you value the guy you're signing as much as the team losing him. The other team should have zero involvement until the other two parties have agreed to terms and it's been signed off by the AFL and a compo pick decided. That should then get presented to the current team, who then decides whether to match or accept the compo. That way both sides have equal risk. The current team risks matching the offer and not being able to reach a trade agreement and being stuck with a player for (in this instance) 5 years, who doesn't want to be there and might not give his all and ask for a trade every year. Meanwhile, the Lions risk losing their man, or giving up more than they'd hoped in draft collateral.


Not sure how this is relevant? Martin is into the 3rd year of a 5 year deal and nothing has changed. I actually didn't like that whole scenario and would've preferred to trade for him. I think most sane neutrals thought our offer was reasonable, and his injuries and output would probably support that.

My priority in all free agency deals is that the player gets where they want to be for a deal they are happy with.

Current contract deals don't work blind. The club knows what it wants to offer and it knows the player has offers in various ballpark figures on cash and years that it has to beat in order to retain the player. It would be exactly the same with free agent deals, the club knows what deal it has to beat.

Freo has been burned on deals where the money disappeared later and the player requested a trade, twice. Brisbane still have that risk. He won't leave in the first three years but after that he might seek another contract elsewhere to stay on the big dollars.

Since Brisbane can't take their commitment off the salary cap with a restructured deal I don't see the issue. We effectively don't see negotiations end on free agents until the paperwork is lodged.

But let's find a limit. If Brisbane was losing a player to Essendon, let's say McLuggage wanted to go to the Dons and Brisbane said they won't let him go for less than a top ten pick - the Bombers were planning on trading Daniher to Brisbane as part of a McLuggage trade... but Brisbane suggest they pay more for Danhier to get the AFL to fund the top ten pick they swap for McLuggage.

Ignoring the trade values, that would be a problem to my eye.

 

[Mister B]

Within the rules as they stand. Have done nothing wrong. I fully expect two years of trade restrictions for the Lions, removal of the RFA arrangements and the AFL to vaguely suggest the system was being corrupted to rile opposition fans up without disclosing what was done wrong, because nothing was.

 

[Red Bull]

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Band 1 should just be a 5 year contract minimum, Band 2 a 3 year minimum

Every Tom, Dick and Harry knew what Brisbane’s plan was.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Band 1 should just be a 5 year contract minimum, Band 2 a 3 year minimum

Every Tom, Dick and Harry knew what Brisbane’s plan was.

Even that's flawed.
Carlton got nothing for Waite. Because of his age, dollars and length of contract (was it only 1 year?). He goes on to play 4 seasons and 60 games. Played a career high 23 games in his first year and kicked a career high number of goals. He was absolutely vital to Carlton at the time.

There's no fool proof way to include compo picks.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Even that's flawed.
Carlton got nothing for Waite. Because of his age, dollars and length of contract (was it only 1 year?). He goes on to play 4 seasons and 60 games. Played a career high 23 games in his first year and kicked a career high number of goals. He was absolutely vital to Carlton at the time.

There's no fool proof way to include compo picks.

He got two years but was obviously paid stuff all.

 

[HugeJohnson]

Crows should be forced to give up Rachele, and to make it fair to Rachele, as he played no part in this, he should be able to stay in the same state and play for another AFL club so he doesn't have to uproot his life.

 

[ferrisb]

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.

Compo is stupid, but if it has to stay... Base the compensation off what the old club is offering...

If the old club only wants to offer a two-year contract at $400k, then that's what he's worth to them. That's what they are losing and arguably what they should be compensated for. Who cares if the new club offer $2M a year... It's irrelevant.

 

[blitzer]

I don't see anything wrong with Essendon acting in their own best interests - the decision tree was literally:
1) First round compensation - Don't match
2) Less than first round compensation - Match and force a trade
Its well within the rules of the game to insist on a level of compensation you're happy with when the player is not an unrestricted free agent.

For Brisbane its a bit more murky depending on whether you believe they always intended to tack on this additional couple of contract years at a lower rate, thereby changing the average amount of the contract. Honestly its suspicious but good luck proving that one.

It also should be pointed out that its Brisbane that mostly benefited from this as Brisbane were the ones who got a player for nothing.
Essendon got compensation for a player they lost which is similar to a trade.
You can of course argue they got more than Daniher was worth at the time but at least they gave up something of value whereas Brisbane got a straight up freebie from this arrangement.

 

[Aramis]

Just another instance of the AFL making silly rules and applying a retrospective tape to wherever the leak appears... the whole league is run by buffoons.

The problem is and has always been 'compensation', it is completely flawed in theory and in practice, the whole idea of compensation in a free agency deal is perverse and should be scrapped entirely.

 

[jc37]

If wrong has been done just swap Essendons first rd pick in 2022 to 2nd rounders. If no clubs has found to manipulate the situation than leave everything as is and change loopholes for the future.

 

[Incarnate]

 

[Daka]

I don't see how anyone could prove it to be illegal.

He signed for 3 years they extended him 1?

How can you disguise a 5 year deal when he signed for 3?

That's a 4 year deal.

 

[Gethelred]

What makes anyone here think that this is in any way against the AFL's wishes?

They genuinely do not give a **** about draft tampering. They give a **** about the perception of cheating. They'd only ever punish either club if the press and the public got into them.

Adelaide got punished because they didn't keep the AFL in the loop. Sydney got punished for taking Franklin because they didn't keep the AFL in the loop and swooped on a player they'd earmarked for GWS. The AFL signs off on all deals, and only changes the terms when community pressure forces them to; if you work with them, keep them involved and aware, they're more than willing to play ball with you.