Dayne Beams payout - Inside or outside the cap?

[Ancient Tiger]

Medical retirement is a valid reason and is outside the cap
Mental health problems are medical problems
So outside the cap
This should be the same for all players and all clubs rather than up to the AFL
If you recruit a player over 25 he will have some medical injury it is the nature of a contact sport

An attempt by a club to get around the rules by claiming mental health can easily disproved.
To retire on these grounds medical reports by specialists would be necessary
If work cover/ insurance is involved mandatory

The problem is if you recruit a guy with a history of multiple ACL recos and he does it again and cannot play again, I don’t think the AFL will allow you to terminate and payout outside the cap. Both are medical problems.

 

[Muddiemoose]

The problem is if you recruit a guy with a history of multiple ACL recos and he does it again and cannot play again, I don’t think the AFL will allow you to terminate and payout outside the cap. Both are medical problems.

Yeah it would be like Brisbane picking up Daniher this year but letting him go for medical reasons in two years time

Pre existing injures or conditions shouldn’t be able to be pushed out of the cap when they were well established when the deal was made

 

[Toump Ass]

I don't see how retirements due to medical reasons can occur outside of the cap. Jack Watts for instance broke his leg and admitted he didn't have the drive to get back to where he needs to be mentally or physically. Technically an injury, but also, what's the point in coming back when your spot is taken. May as well take an early retirement if it's all the same.

Ultimately if this is true all a player needs to do is say "I like cocaine" and the club will save a huge amount of cap space.

An attempt by a club to get around the rules by claiming mental health can easily disproved.
To retire on these grounds medical reports by specialists would be necessary

Bullshit.
I've dealt with plenty of doctors willing to hand out whatever as long as I say the right things. And I have quite a bit less money than Collingwood.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

Honestly I don't even care any more.

This is an entertainment business, modeled on a sporting league.

I just wish I grew up supporting one of the more entertaining teams.

Following one of the smaller / less successful clubs is like your favourite character on a TV drama being the one constantly getting messed up.

You're basically just hoping they don't get killed off by next season.

 

[vikingpimp]

His choice of reading material sums up his thoughts on the whole situation

 

[JasRulz63]

I thought all retirement payouts were included in the TPP regardless of the reasoning for retirement, with allowances made for spreading out the TPP hit across more than one season but the player stays on the list. If the player was acquired as a free agent, then the full contract needs to be accounted for in the TPP (i.e. Vickery).

Chris Yarran retired due to mental health issues, and his negotiated payout (significantly less than his contract) was reportedly included in Richmond's TPP.

I don't see why Dayne Beams' payout would be any different.

 

[MarcusP2]

AFL needs a NFL-style salary cap.

Salary, bonuses, guarantees for skill, guarantees for injury, etc. There's no clarity on this whole situation (we have the same thing with Gibbs).

 

[katmanblue]

No he doesnt. I actually think it’s a very pertinent question. Similar questions should have been asked when Sam Murray and Willie Rioli largely fell off the face of the earth after their positive ASADA samples. There’s been zero transparency in both of those processes too and it seems that AFL house hold a lot of bearing on what does and doesn’t get reported. The Beams situation is clearly a sweeping under the carpet deal and it makes you question how journalists have their pockets lined, along with all the other issues that the OP has quite correctly pointed out. I think OP is asking fair and balanced questions and I’d also like to know those answers.

Transparency? In the AFL? Hahahahaha.

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Kappa]

It's pretty ******* common sense that any player who has to retire due to medical reasons should not have their salary included in the cap.

Collingwood has gained nothing and already lost a huge amount from this deal, there's no reason to screw our next 2 seasons because Beams is medically unable to play.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

It's pretty ******* common sense that any player who has to retire due to medical reasons should not have their salary included in the cap.

Collingwood has gained nothing and already lost a huge amount from this deal, there's no reason to screw our next 2 seasons because Beams is medically unable to play.

It's almost like terrible decisions can have terrible consequences.

If Dayne cannot fulfill his contract, then there are potential remedies we are welcome to explore. But any player payments should be under the salary cap - it's pretty ******* common sense.

 

[Belnakor]

I thought all retirement payouts were included in the TPP regardless of the reasoning for retirement, with allowances made for spreading out the TPP hit across more than one season but the player stays on the list. If the player was acquired as a free agent, then the full contract needs to be accounted for in the TPP (i.e. Vickery).

Chris Yarran retired due to mental health issues, and his negotiated payout (significantly less than his contract) was reportedly included in Richmond's TPP.

I don't see why Dayne Beams' payout would be any different.

+ pretty sure when Buddy signed his contract it was explicitly said to sydney even if he retires due to injury it will all go into the cap.

sounds like the holding the ball / incorrect disposal rule - plenty of grey areas.

 

[Goomba1973]

You sound bitter you lost at home to Collingwood...

Not as bitter as that home final you lost a few years back

 

[Kappa]

It's almost like terrible decisions can have terrible consequences.

If Dayne cannot fulfill his contract, then there are potential remedies we are welcome to explore. But any player payments should be under the salary cap - it's pretty ******* common sense.

Even the NRL is smart enough to not include players salaries when doctors deems them medically unable to fulfill their contract yet people still want to debate it.. My lord.

The terrible consequences is us wasting money, draft picks and a list spot on Beams, what good does including his salary in our cap for years do? What if it was a 7 year 7 million dollar contract? You'd be happy to make a club crippled for 7 years? Because why exactly?

 

[Sirlemsip]

Even the NRL is smart enough to not include players salaries when doctors deems them medically unable to fulfill their contract yet people still want to debate it.. My lord.

The terrible consequences is us wasting money, draft picks and a list spot on Beams, what good does including his salary in our cap for years do? What if it was a 7 year 7 million dollar contract? You'd be happy to make a club crippled for 7 years? Because why exactly?

It depends on the situation - if Beams, Buddy, Coniglio, or whatever player in question, signs a big contract with the club and then needs to retire due to injury/illness but wants their portion of the contract paid out - of course it needs to be included in the cap. Otherwise there is no risk in making large long term deals to players - it potentially puts clubs in the position of making multiple large offers almost 'expecting' that one or more players will not make it to the end of contracts.

Alternatively, if the player elects to accept less money than in the contract (or no money e.g. Boyd), then there is less/no cash payout to be included in the cap.

 

[Kappa]

It depends on the situation - if Beams, Buddy, Coniglio, or whatever player in question, signs a big contract with the club and then needs to retire due to injury/illness but wants their portion of the contract paid out - of course it needs to be included in the cap. Otherwise there is no risk in making large long term deals to players - it potentially puts clubs in the position of making multiple large offers almost 'expecting' that one or more players will not make it to the end of contracts.

Alternatively, if the player elects to accept less money than in the contract (or no money e.g. Boyd), then there is less/no cash payout to be included in the cap.

What nonsense, clubs can't just expect players to be medically retired during a contract, how many star players in the past decade have been medically retired on long contracts?

There absolutely is a risk with long contracts, the risk that players won't perform over the duration of the contract.

 

[Sirlemsip]

What nonsense, clubs can't just expect players to be medically retired during a contract, how many star players in the past decade have been medically retired on long contracts?

There absolutely is a risk with long contracts, the risk that players won't perform over the duration of the contract.

There are a couple of issues at hand:
1. What the player wants/demands on leaving the club. If they mutually agree to not receive the remaining years of their payment and actually receive nothing, then there is no payment that needs to be included in the cap. e.g. if Beams agrees to not be paid the remainder of his contract then there is nothing to include in the cap.

2. The more important issue is that even if we accept the above point is reasonable (which i do), it opens the system up to rorted - such as a club and a player agreeing to a large long term contract (e.g. the 9 year Buddy deal) with the knowledge that the play would actually only play 7 years and would agree to not receive the rest of the contract. This raises concerns around the whole free agency process both in relation to clubs 'bidding' against each other, and potential compensation draft picks which are offered (which i think should be completely scrapped anyway)

 

[Kappa]

There are a couple of issues at hand:
1. What the player wants/demands on leaving the club. If they mutually agree to not receive the remaining years of their payment and actually receive nothing, then there is no payment that needs to be included in the cap. e.g. if Beams agrees to not be paid the remainder of his contract then there is nothing to include in the cap.

2. The more important issue is that even if we accept the above point is reasonable (which i do), it opens the system up to rorted - such as a club and a player agreeing to a large long term contract (e.g. the 9 year Buddy deal) with the knowledge that the play would actually only play 7 years and would agree to not receive the rest of the contract. This raises concerns around the whole free agency process both in relation to clubs 'bidding' against each other, and potential compensation draft picks which are offered (which i think should be completely scrapped anyway)

How to players and clubs make deals that they will be medically retired by a medical professional after 7 years? Again, utter nonsense that doesn't happen.

Also what you're describing is very close to fraud when people are signing contracts with every intention to break it and screw over other clubs.

 

[Toump Ass]

It's pretty ******* common sense that any player who has to retire due to medical reasons should not have their salary included in the cap.

Dayne's true calling is as an artist. This is the real reason he is sitting on his arse eating hamburgers and not training. It takes away from precious time finger-painting. This should absolutely not be included in the cap.

 

[F_therest]

He signed a 4 year contract worth $2mil.

Report: Dayne Beams may have played his last AFL game, with parties set to work out settlement

Beams may have played his last AFL game. Now a $1.5m contract settlement looms

www.foxsports.com.au

Payout should be in the cap. Collingwood knew his mental health issues before the trade and they shouldn't be bailed out for making poor decisions.

Objectively it is right up there with one of the worst contracts you'll see...certainly in modern times. $500k a year is not a small amount and Beams hasn't played and isn't going to...still TWO more years to go.

There should absolutely be some questions raised publicly and typically it would...it's very strange that the media don't even mention it. Eddie McGuire flexing his muscle telling people not to speak about it? The AFL itself in on it? Collingwood paying $500k to him while there's ongoing dialogue about their cap squeeze and efforts to re-sign Moore/De Goey/Mihochek/Daicos is absolutely topical news.

 

[F_therest]

It depends on the situation - if Beams, Buddy, Coniglio, or whatever player in question, signs a big contract with the club and then needs to retire due to injury/illness but wants their portion of the contract paid out - of course it needs to be included in the cap. Otherwise there is no risk in making large long term deals to players - it potentially puts clubs in the position of making multiple large offers almost 'expecting' that one or more players will not make it to the end of contracts.

Alternatively, if the player elects to accept less money than in the contract (or no money e.g. Boyd), then there is less/no cash payout to be included in the cap.

I agree with you but you can see the potential for manipulation and this would be for all clubs (although advantage to the bigger/richer clubs)...isn't it well known Collingwood board members paid off Beams' gambling debts? In this scenario the player could officially agree to accept less/no money in the cap, but Collingwood 'pays' Beams somehow outside of footy...be it buying his paintings, paying off more debt, using connections to get him a job etc.

 

[vozzon]

I agree with you but you can see the potential for manipulation and this would be for all clubs (although advantage to the bigger/richer clubs)...isn't it well known Collingwood board members paid off Beams' gambling debts? In this scenario the player could officially agree to accept less/no money in the cap, but Collingwood 'pays' Beams somehow outside of footy...be it buying his paintings, paying off more debt, using connections to get him a job etc.

No doubt there is massive manipulation. Would the AFL even want to look at any payments collingwood made to beams to pay off his debts, and if that should be included in the Cap.

 

[Kappa]

No doubt there is massive manipulation. Would the AFL even want to look at any payments collingwood made to beams to pay off his debts, and if that should be included in the Cap.

Which evidence have you seen that proves Collingwood paid off Beams' alleged debt?

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

I don't know what the right answer is with Beams, but those comparing his to the Buddy situation are completely missing the point.

Buddy was a restricted free agent. His recruitment was predicated on the guarantee that Sydney would be required to pay out the whole contact offered (regardless of whether it is later renegotiated).

Personally, I think restricted free agency is a bullshit system that doesn't make sense, but as long as it exists, it doesn't allow for flexibility on the TPP side. Otherwise, clubs could just use the system to get a player in by offering a salary way above what they are willing to pay, then renegotiate the contract down the next year. It's risky, because players could call the bluff and refuse the renegotiation when they get to it (after representing that they would agree to it), but the system is clearly open to abuse.

It's how the deal works and that is the inherent gamble by making someone a huge restricted free agency offer of the nature that was offered to Buddy.

There is no such inherent problem with players who are brought in via the draft, unrestricted free agency or a trade (as was the case with Beams).

 

[BEEG]

His choice of reading material sums up his thoughts on the whole situation

View attachment 982729View attachment 982732

Yeah that worked for the grub.

 

[Fabab]

Included in their cap.