Rumour Dayne Beams - will he or won't he retire?

[Horaceg]

Taking bets that Dayne nominates himself available for next season.

I’d give him a dollar fifty to stay home.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Looking forward to putting this far in the rearview. Hopefully we will be able to do what is necessary to keep De Goey and Moore.

 

[NonPhixion]

Well he has a Contract to say he gets the Money so can't really do much.

So do we just keep him on the Salary Cap or Pay his Money so we get Salary Cap Relief which we need badly.

This could be the Reason why Moore is waiting on his Contract Talks

He is not fulfilling the contract, I could be wrong here but Collingwood don’t have to give him a cent. Unless there is a clause for ‘mental health’

 

[Billys Back]

If someone takes him on, it will work about as well as Mitch Clarke to Geelong I'm afraid. But I can just see a club taking the punt. St Kilda probably.

His final stop unfortunately will probably be a tell all interview for cash.

nah. Next he will be painting boomerangs and thenwill find himself on Celebrity Get Me Out of Here.

and then comes the interview.

 

[Matt_352]

Whoever signed off on this deal should be sacked, and Beams should be paying Collingwood not other way around

 

[Harry O]

Whoever signed off on this deal should be sacked, and Beams should be paying Collingwood not other way around

How do we sack Eddie?

 

[BEEG]

Hopefully, the payout goes to all the people he owes money.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

He is not fulfilling the contract, I could be wrong here but Collingwood don’t have to give him a cent. Unless there is a clause for ‘mental health’

I’d be shocked if there wasn’t a clause for cancelling the contract for health reasons. It’s probably exactly the reason that his exit has to be negotiated rather than the club sacking him on the spot without a cent being paid. I can only imagine the uproar if the club did that.

Any money saved from this debacle is money made that we can reinvest in 2021 and 2022 to help retain Moore and DeGoey. It’s the silver lining on a dark cloud.

 

[sideswipe]

I’d be shocked if there wasn’t a clause for cancelling the contract for health reasons. It’s probably exactly the reason that his exit has to be negotiated rather than the club sacking him on the spot without a cent being paid. I can only imagine the uproar if the club did that.

Any money saved from this debacle is money made that we can reinvest in 2021 and 2022 to help retain Moore and DeGoey. It’s the silver lining on a dark cloud.

Be shocked. There isn't such a clause, at least specifically. Players' obligations are variously set out in the CBA, Code of Conduct and Standard Player Contract, with the CBA taking priority. All the obligations are pretty general - for instance, under the player contract, the player must "Do everything reasonably necessary to obtain and maintain the best possible physical condition so as to render the most efficient service to the AFL Club...". Meeting that one is pretty hard to define.

Among other things, Clubs can terminate a player contract for "serious or wilful misconduct" or for a contract breach (with 28 days notice and breach hasn't been remedied).

Arguing the toss on whether a Club has grounds to terminate would be a messy way to go. Far better for all to work something out behind closed doors.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Be shocked. There isn't such a clause, at least specifically. Players' obligations are variously set out in the CBA, Code of Conduct and Standard Player Contract, with the CBA taking priority. All the obligations are pretty general - for instance, under the player contract, the player must "Do everything reasonably necessary to obtain and maintain the best possible physical condition so as to render the most efficient service to the AFL Club...". Meeting that one is pretty hard to define.

Among other things, Clubs can terminate a player contract for "serious or wilful misconduct" or for a contract breach (with 28 days notice and breach hasn't been remedied).

Arguing the toss on whether a Club has grounds to terminate would be a messy way to go. Far better for all to work something out behind closed doors.

So there is a clause. Even if it a general duty of care clause. Would be very messy to sack somebody for breach of contract when they have already “ played the mental health card”. It would be a shitstorm.

Agree it’s easier and cleaner to work out behind closed doors. The club is absolutely doing the right thing here. It’s the only exit strategy.

 

[jackcass]

So instead of paying nothing for a year in which he will never appear at his workplace, he gets $650000? That is certainly generous if what you say is correct.

Not really when he could simply choose to remain on the list and take the full $1.2-1.5M remaining on his contract or even demand something closer to that as a payout.

 

[jackcass]

He is not fulfilling the contract, I could be wrong here but Collingwood don’t have to give him a cent. Unless there is a clause for ‘mental health’

If he has the support of medico's around his mental health then he actually is.

 

[iGNITER]

Hopefully, the payout goes to all the people he owes money.

Payout might not be big enough for that.

 

[Bay Pie]

We could of Traded Up with the 1st Rounder We would of Kept IF Beams was not Traded in.

Like what Freo did in last years Draft

Unlikely Dave. Only Swans and North had academy kids and they both traded for points in the same draft. We didn't have the capital in the existing draft to beat the deals that went down. Yeah, we could have used future later selections but you're really getting into extreme hypothetical's that no one knows if they weren't actually discussed or not but declined.

As far as trading both our 1st rounders, for a top 10ish pick, why would any team do that? I'd be ropeable with our club if we did it. Remember any trade of picks has to have a benefit to the other team, especially if we were persuing it.

This years draft will be a good case in point, albeit a heap more academy kids in the 1st round. We'll have Reef, so we'll look to trade down in the 1st round before he's likely to get bid on. It won't be an easy sell, as we only have a pick in each round and using next years 1st is risky due to Nick Daicos, but we may even look to use the 2022 pick to secure points for Nick but that's really getting down the track.

The Beams deal cost us a Mitch Georgiadies/Sam De Koning standard player and some wasted salary cap space. We lose but that happens with trades sometimes

 

[TradeDraft]

Unlikely Dave. Only Swans and North had academy kids and they both traded for points in the same draft. We didn't have the capital in the existing draft to beat the deals that went down. Yeah, we could have used future later selections but you're really getting into extreme hypothetical's that no one knows if they weren't actually discussed or not but declined.

As far as trading both our 1st rounders, for a top 10ish pick, why would any team do that? I'd be ropeable with our club if we did it. Remember any trade of picks has to have a benefit to the other team, especially if we were persuing it.

This years draft will be a good case in point, albeit a heap more academy kids in the 1st round. We'll have Reef, so we'll look to trade down in the 1st round before he's likely to get bid on. It won't be an easy sell, as we only have a pick in each round and using next years 1st is risky due to Nick Daicos, but we may even look to use the 2022 pick to secure points for Nick but that's really getting down the track.

The Beams deal cost us a Mitch Georgiadies/Sam De Koning standard player and some wasted salary cap space. We lose but that happens with trades sometimes

Though shouldn't we been not so Aggressive for a Player we knew had Mental Issues/Depression. Sounds like now was more Reasons then his Dad Passing Away

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Not really when he could simply choose to remain on the list and take the full $1.2-1.5M remaining on his contract or even demand something closer to that as a payout.

Note that I qualified my comment with 'if what you say is correct' i.e. if as Jen said he had committed a dismissable act and was not entitled to a payout.

 

[TKiL]

Hopefully, the payout goes to all the people he owes money.

Won't be enough though

 

[McOrist]

Is there a 'Sanity Clause?

 

[Apex36]

Not really when he could simply choose to remain on the list and take the full $1.2-1.5M remaining on his contract or even demand something closer to that as a payout.

If the rumours of what he’s done are true I’m not sure he’s in the position to be doing either of those things. As it stands, a ‘retirement’ payout sounds more like a PR exercise to protect both Beams’ reputation and the clubs interests.

 

[jackcass]

If the rumours of what he’s done are true I’m not sure he’s in the position to be doing either of those things. As it stands, a ‘retirement’ payout sounds more like a PR exercise to protect both Beams’ reputation and the clubs interests.

What he's in a position to do would be governed by what can be proven in a court of law, the internal machinations of how the club dealt with that, and whether what he's allegedly done constitutes sufficient grounds to carry a misconduct termination. Because that's where it'd be heading if we didn't have what currently appears to be an amicable move to a compromise. But my point stands insomuch that it doesn't mean he's not entitled to push for a full payout if he's prepared to wear the potential fallout. Onus would be on the club to make their case and potentially mitigate the damage but that could just as easily backfire and end up costing more than the $1.2-1.5M.

 

[Apex36]

What he's in a position to do would be governed by what can be proven in a court of law, the internal machinations of how the club dealt with that, and whether what he's allegedly done constitutes sufficient grounds to carry a misconduct termination. Because that's where it'd be heading if we didn't have what currently appears to be an amicable move to a compromise. But my point stands insomuch that it doesn't mean he's not entitled to push for a full payout if he's prepared to wear the potential fallout. Onus would be on the club to make their case and potentially mitigate the damage but that could just as easily backfire and end up costing more than the $1.2-1.5M.

Fairly sure it would be easy to prove credit card theft in a court of law, so that wouldn’t be an issue. As I said, this is dependent on those rumours being true...

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

Seems to be 650k, that's what Tom was saying. If that's true, that's not bad given his total rest of his salary between 2020-2022 would be 1.5M

That would be a great outcome for us in order to free up cap space, as JDG and Moore are must retentions on the list.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Fairly sure it would be easy to prove credit card theft in a court of law, so that wouldn’t be an issue. As I said, this is dependent on those rumours being true...

He could claim the Specsavers defence!!!!

(Not to mention the mental health defence)

 

[jimmy35]

If those rumours are true I doubt the club would hang him out to dry, appears best case scenarios are going on all round.

 

[Collingwoodity]

If he has the support of medico's around his mental health then he actually is.

Arguably in a legal sense, arguably not in a moral sense.