Essendon trade moves and the secret 'COLA'-style payments people still don't understand

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
1,473
Likes
4,127
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #27

Marc_Remillard

Angel of the Abyss
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Posts
5,680
Likes
5,981
AFL Club
Melbourne
#29
No, they could have folded.
Yean nah, a club ruined because a group of officials and players tried to cheat to win. The club is owned by the supporters, those running the clubs are just temporary custodians. As much as i hate them it wouldn't have been the right thing
 
Last edited:

Bunk Moreland

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
29,302
Likes
55,721
Location
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
#30
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-16/another-bad-day-for-essendon-with-9.8m-loss/8028812

Yep, just making shit up. Note the number provided in the club's financial report is actually just an estimate as they still had ongoing claims.
So you’re saying these payments were used to keep players at Essendon, ala COLA?

As in, if they moved clubs, they’d forfeit these payments? (That’s how COLA works, you only for it if you played at a certain club).
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
1,473
Likes
4,127
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #31
Essendon organised for outside counsel to negotiate fair and appropriate settlements with each player without the involvement of the Board and Executive (in order to avoid the issues raised).

Your post is simply crap masquerading as fact and this been pointed out to you even years ago when you were flogging this line.
No, what you all pointed out repeatedly was that it was being covered entirely by insurance until that proved to be simply not true. Now you are stuck arguing that the club was somehow not involved in settlement negotiations because they had lawyers? It's bizarre and also, funnily enough, demonstrably false.

"The negotiations with the Essendon Football Club have been complex and we acknowledge the constructive approach of the Essendon Football Club and in particular, its CEO Xavier Campbell in resolving these matters."

https://www.slatergordon.com.au/med...otball-club-and-18-current-and-former-players
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
1,473
Likes
4,127
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #33
So you’re saying these payments were used to keep players at Essendon, ala COLA?

As in, if they moved clubs, they’d forfeit these payments? (That’s how COLA works, you only for it if you played at a certain club).
Nice pivot. I am using COLA (note it's in quotes and it is followed by '-style' so people understand that this is about the salary cap. I know how COLA works

Players who weren't at Essendon still received compo of course. The question is how much the size of the compensation may have impacted contract negotiations and ultimately how both negotiations may have impacted each other.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Burzum

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Posts
27,684
Likes
9,790
AFL Club
Essendon
#37
Quick version : The AFL allowed Essendon to deliver big payments outside the salary cap in the form of legal settlements probably giving them a massive advantage over other clubs still to this day.

Long version: Essendon have done absolutely nothing wrong as they simply followed the AFL's directives. This is not the 'supplements saga', this is more like COLA. It was AFL, whether intentionally or incompetently, compromising the competition again.

The reason it's interesting to bring it up now is that generally people didn't understand the possible implications at the time and still don't. They didn't seem to get that it could allow Essendon to retain (almost) all of its gun players and young talent while raiding genuine talent elsewhere for a number of years. And that is what we are starting to really see now - seemingly no pressure to retain wanted (from outside) players and the ability to go after multiple big signings in consecutive years.

Essentially Essendon was allowed to make discretionary payments to players outside the cap who they were simultaneously trying to keep contracted at the club and negotiating salaries with, with the only oversight being that Essendon had to pay 'market value'. This means they couldn't take the absolute piss with the cap, but it did mean that they could easily free up extra cash for each player and allow further room to maneuver with front-loaded and back-loaded contracts. It reduced the likelihood of paying overs for required players, helping list management. This means the effects were always going to last for many years after the payments.

Collingwood would love to pay Tom Lynch a 3 million dollar settlement if he stubbed his toe while meeting Bucks, pay him a bit less on his contract than otherwise and use the spare cash to help fend off any future plays for Stephenson. A settlement is just a payment from a club to a player outside the cap. It's ridiculous that essentially only Jake Niall in the media realised this was a problem at the time (but even he couldn't see how inadequate the 'fix' was) and other clubs have screwed up badly by not pushing back on the AFL.

Lastly, someone will post that these were just insurance payments - this is a lie. Insurance covered SOME of the payment amounts, but Essendon was paying discretionary amounts to different players from its own pocket.
SEETHING
 

Bunk Moreland

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
29,302
Likes
55,721
Location
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
#38
Nice pivot. I am using COLA (note it's in quotes and it is followed by '-style' so people understand that this is about the salary cap. I know how COLA works

Players who weren't at Essendon still received compo of course. The question is how much the size of the compensation may have impacted contract negotiations and ultimately how both negotiations may have impacted each other.
I’m not pivoting, I’m trying to work out which payments you’re talking about.

1. You have players compensation payments - negotiated by EFCs lawyers, the players lawyers (the vast majority of whom were represented by the same legal team - EFC and other players) and insurance companies.

2. You have standard player contracts negotiated by EFC list management and player managers.

You’re saying (1) could’ve been negotiated to be higher on the condition that players stayed at EFC rather than going elsewhere? As in, (simple example) “we’ll give you $1m compensation. But if you don’t play for Essendon, you get $600k” type of thing?
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
1,473
Likes
4,127
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #39
Meh, Essendon had to field a team, they had to bring in an extra 20 odd players and pay the existing guys, what were they meant to do?
It's not really to do with the top-up players.

There was no easy answer as to what they could have done about the situation, short of requiring that no current Essendon player could negotiate a settlement. That would've caused a likely exodus - but that shows you why the whole thing was inherently compromised and also that the idea that compensation/contract negotiations were completely separate just doesn't make any sense. They were intrinsically linked.
 

Jobe Watson

Brownlow Medalist
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Posts
13,154
Likes
16,006
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal
#42
i met dysen heppell at the family day last year and i did think it was weerd that he told me he resinged at the club for just 100,000k. but now i know why its because the other 500000 was paid under the table. i cant beleeve essendon lied to me again how could they do this to me? i donated to the flight plan and everthing

thanku linda for doing this investigative research
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Posts
17
Likes
25
AFL Club
Essendon
#43
Boyd is over paid though so it’s unfair to use that as the measuring stick
True, but I do believe Daniher's contract is indeed well below what he'd get on the open market.

As for the compensation, without knowing many details of it (widely unreported in the media as some have said), I'm not sure what you expected Essendon or the AFL to do to avoid the situation.
They were paid as damages to the players, legal settlements made outside the parameters of the AFL. The AFL doesn't have jurisdiction in deciding what compensation is appropriate in this situation.

I suppose the AFL could have made all banned players DFA, thus no danger of compensation payments being made in lieu of contractual payments. Would have been a very controversial/bold move though, and I'm not sure the executive arm of the AFL is the sort to rock the boat with a decision like that.

Also, Mick Hurley and Cale Hooker are, IIRC, two of the most highly paid players at the club to this day. There were certainly whispers both were out the door during the year off, particularly links were made between Hurley and Footscray.

OP talked about this continuing to impact on the competition, well both were down on form in 2018 too, meaning their play is likely in line with their pay.
 
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
1,473
Likes
4,127
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #44
I’m not pivoting, I’m trying to work out which payments you’re talking about.

1. You have players compensation payments - negotiated by EFCs lawyers, the players lawyers (the vast majority of whom were represented by the same legal team - EFC and other players) and insurance companies.

2. You have standard player contracts negotiated by EFC list management and player managers.

You’re saying (1) could’ve been negotiated to be higher on the condition that players stayed at EFC rather than going elsewhere? As in, (simple example) “we’ll give you $1m compensation. But if you don’t play for Essendon, you get $600k” type of thing?
So firstly, do you think if Essendon players were told that they could not negotiate and receive compensation payments until they left Essendon, that more would've left? If you agree, then you would have to agree that on some level, player willingness to stick by Essendon was at least on some level related to compensation (and I think anyone would be downright delusional to not agree).

So if you take it one step further, you realise that happiness with compo negotiations is already impacting contract negotiations prior to any dodgy deals being done. Essendon realizes it is pissing players off by going too hard with compo, so it is already using a financial incentive to keep the peace.

Then of course there's all sorts of ways to frame conversations without even sounding that dodgy and still make it clear.

Did the AFL even know player compensation amounts? They are confidential legal settlements and the AFL only said it would check for dodgy low contract amounts.
 

Shane Heard

All Australian
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Posts
688
Likes
1,314
AFL Club
Essendon
#45
It's not really to do with the top-up players.

There was no easy answer as to what they could have done about the situation, short of requiring that no current Essendon player could negotiate a settlement. That would've caused a likely exodus - but that shows you why the whole thing was inherently compromised and also that the idea that compensation/contract negotiations were completely separate just doesn't make any sense. They were intrinsically linked.

Wtf would you prohibit a current player at the time from negotiating a settlement? They wanted to stay. Don’t you get that?
The ones that left had the shits with the club and just wanted a fresh start. So they got the #### out and quietly banked there own comp payment while getting on with their lives and footy career.

The whole suspension year was very traumatic for most players. We’re lucky that half a dozen more quality players didn’t pull the pin.

We would’ve be ####ed for the next 10 years otherwise.

You call it intrinsically linked...the compo and regular player payments.
Buts it all absolute rubbish and you know it. You’re just clutching at straws trying desperately to whip
up more furious venom hopefully spitted out by the legions of EFC haters in this joint.

You have failed in your quest son.

No one gives a flying #### anymore.

It’s history.

Good effort though.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Posts
1,949
Likes
4,005
AFL Club
Melbourne
#50
Yean nah, a club ruined because a group of officials and players tried to cheat to win. The club is owned by the supporters, those running the clubs are just temporary custodians. As much as i hate them it wouldn't not have been the right thing
Without AFL intervention the club would have folded. The were allowed to make payments which should have come under salary cap.
 
Top Bottom