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 #102
I thought everyone was saying we were paying overs for Hooker, Hurley and Heppell at the time.

Also where does losing Hibberd to Melbourne when they came with more money fit into this narrative?
Hibberd was the exception, yes. But we don't know how much Hibberd wanted to go (some players were genuinely pissed) how much Essendon really wanted to retain him and how far the difference in (salary) price was. As stated, there was a system in place to make sure they didn't take the piss too hard and there were other variables at stake.
 

Spanish_Fly

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Posts
1,684
Likes
1,836
AFL Club
Richmond
No, you’re shifting the goalposts.

The players got compensation, yes. It could’ve been $10k, $100k or $10m.

Nobody is arguing they received compensation. All players got it - those still at Essendon, those who weren’t, those who had re-signed, those who hadn’t.

Your thread is about how it was some sort of tool to circumvent the salary cap, thus giving Essendon an advantage. The salary cap is an equalisation tool across all clubs.

So what you’re trying to say is, Essendon paid players more compensation in exchange for staying at Essendon. Paying players an amount that they couldn’t be paid at other clubs. Like COLA.

How on earth would that have happened? As you’ve been told, the players legal team - which represented players at EFC and player at other clubs - negotiated the settlements. You think they accepted lower amounts for the like of Ryder and Monfries, because Essendon weren’t trying to re-sign them?

Particularly when, apart from anything else, their own payment was a cut of the compensation?
I think you've missed the point, no one has implied the players who werent at Essendon recieved lower amounts than they should have, but that the players who stayed at Essendon could easily have received higher amounts than they otherwise would have. Do you think the lawyers for these players would have told them to not accept the higher amount tax free but instead include it in their taxable income (whilst at the same time those lawyers missing out on their commission.)

Do you think that Essendon didnt realise that they could pay these players the same amount, but put a greater split into an area that wasnt covered by the cap? They would be idiots if they didnt do this. The point of the thread is that its once again laughable that the AFL would allow a team to do this within the rules.
 

markm106

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Posts
6,704
Likes
4,744
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
I thought at the time it was a bit smelly. But I don’t see how differently this could have worked. You just hope player managers didn’t factor it into a lesser value conctract in negotiations.
 

Runk

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 12, 2003
Posts
14,763
Likes
13,473
Location
under the table
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Not important
Discretionary settlements. Essendon could negotiate to pay more or less depending on the player. They had to pay some amount to every player, but could pay more to others. It's really not hard to understand.

Negotiations with some players were settled more easily than others. Note these players, like Jake Carlisle, were not current Essendon players. So yes, player lawyers were doing their best - what matters is how much Essendon were willing to get tough in negotiations.

Essendon lawyers work for Essendon - I mean. On top of that, Slater and Gordon state that the CEO himself was involved directly in negotiations.

You can believe that Essendon and player managers each didn't try to leverage the two negotiations (Essendon to retain players for lower cap space, players to maximize total payments) but to suggest they couldn't have easily done it makes no sense.
So this is all just about what you believe, yeah?
 

Bunk Moreland

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
29,303
Likes
55,726
Location
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
I think you've missed the point, no one has implied the players who werent at Essendon recieved lower amounts than they should have, but that the players who stayed at Essendon could easily have received higher amounts than they otherwise would have. Do you think the lawyers for these players would have told them to not accept the higher amount tax free but instead include it in their taxable income (whilst at the same time those lawyers missing out on their commission.)

Do you think that Essendon didnt realise that they could pay these players the same amount, but put a greater split into an area that wasnt covered by the cap? They would be idiots if they didnt do this. The point of the thread is that its once again laughable that the AFL would allow a team to do this within the rules.
No, I think you’re missing the point. There was no amount “they should have received” from which to scale up or down. It was a unique situation with compensation calculated.

The same lawyers represented Essendon and non Essendon players. Do you seriously think they’ve accepted a different calculation that resulted in a lower amount for their non-Essendon clients?

Do you think players that were traded or delisted, or wanted out, subsequent to negotiations, received a revised lower figure?

They were all given compensation unrelated to where they chose to play or were playing. There was no advantage to Essendon.

The proposition doesn’t even make sense. It’s one of those dumb conspiracy theories that falls apart with the slightest bit of rational thinking.

Though it’s unsurprising - plenty of Essendon saga fanbois also just coincidently happen to also be moron conspiracy theorist nutters more generally.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Posts
17,185
Likes
17,967
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I thought at the time it was a bit smelly. But I don’t see how differently this could have worked. You just hope player managers didn’t factor it into a lesser value conctract in negotiations.
The insurer should have declined due to gross negligence on Essendon's part.

How often have you known an insurance company to just roll over?

Then magically next minute be named a major AFL sponsor.
 

TW Sherrin

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 7, 2014
Posts
10,944
Likes
10,623
Location
?
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
49ers
if they have used a "second cap" to top up players head should roll for wasting the money. they were crap this year.
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2015
Posts
4,757
Likes
6,867
Location
South West
AFL Club
West Coast
it is wrong to a point, but the Essendon 34 do deserve significant compensation from the club that ruined their careers and lives (though they aren't blameless.)

How to deliver this without salary cap compromises?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ambrosia

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Posts
9,026
Likes
4,527
AFL Club
Essendon
Hibberd was the exception, yes. But we don't know how much Hibberd wanted to go (some players were genuinely pissed) how much Essendon really wanted to retain him and how far the difference in (salary) price was. As stated, there was a system in place to make sure they didn't take the piss too hard and there were other variables at stake.
Hibberd didn't leave because he was angry at the club. He followed an ex Essendon assistant who offered him more money than Essendon could match
 

Dave

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 8, 2000
Posts
16,690
Likes
9,818
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon
Do you think that Essendon didnt realise that they could pay these players the same amount, but put a greater split into an area that wasnt covered by the cap? They would be idiots if they didnt do this. The point of the thread is that its once again laughable that the AFL would allow a team to do this within the rules.
Of course they did. And the players lawyers would have advised them to accept as the more money went in the settlements the higher their fees. Win win for everyone.
 

Bunk Moreland

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
29,303
Likes
55,726
Location
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
The insurer should have declined due to gross negligence on Essendon's part.

How often have you known an insurance company to just roll over?

Then magically next minute be named a major AFL sponsor.
What? They should have declined due to gross negligence on Essendon's part?

Do you even know what professional liability / indemnity insurance is? It's precisely for gross negligence by employees and protection from legal claims (among other things).

Be like if you crashed your car into a $300,000 Mercedes only to be told you're not covered by your comprehensive insurance because you were at fault. Um... what? That's the whole point of it.
 

markm106

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Posts
6,704
Likes
4,744
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
The insurer should have declined due to gross negligence on Essendon's part.

How often have you known an insurance company to just roll over?

Then magically next minute be named a major AFL sponsor.
Agree there. An insurer paying out on it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Posts
32,154
Likes
19,371
Location
Where Premiership dreams are made...
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Man U, Canucks and 49ers
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?
The players were given huge increases to re-sign on and keep quiet. It wasn't just for paying the other players.

Alos heard the insurance company involved in this is very heavily connected with the AFL.
 

Dave

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 8, 2000
Posts
16,690
Likes
9,818
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon
The players were given huge increases to re-sign on and keep quiet. It wasn't just for paying the other players.
Of course they were. Otherwise they'd have all left.

Alos heard the insurance company involved in this is very heavily connected with the AFL.
They use au-pairs recommended by Gil.
 

Dave

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 8, 2000
Posts
16,690
Likes
9,818
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon
What? They should have declined due to gross negligence on Essendon's part?

Do you even know what professional liability / indemnity insurance is? It's precisely for gross negligence by employees and protection from legal claims (among other things).

Be like if you crashed your car into a $300,000 Mercedes only to be told you're not covered by your comprehensive insurance because you were at fault. Um... what? That's the whole point of it.
Nuffy's gonna nuffy Bunk.
 

Spanish_Fly

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Posts
1,684
Likes
1,836
AFL Club
Richmond
No, I think you’re missing the point. There was no amount “they should have received” from which to scale up or down. It was a unique situation with compensation calculated.

The same lawyers represented Essendon and non Essendon players. Do you seriously think they’ve accepted a different calculation that resulted in a lower amount for their non-Essendon clients?

Do you think players that were traded or delisted, or wanted out, subsequent to negotiations, received a revised lower figure?

They were all given compensation unrelated to where they chose to play or were playing. There was no advantage to Essendon.

The proposition doesn’t even make sense. It’s one of those dumb conspiracy theories that falls apart with the slightest bit of rational thinking.

Though it’s unsurprising - plenty of Essendon saga fanbois also just coincidently happen to also be moron conspiracy theorist nutters more generally.

I'm sorry but which bit about "no one receievd a lower figure than they were entitled to" do you not understand.

I'll try and make this simple for you

1. Lawyers negotiate with Essendon on behalf of all players to reach an agreed sum for settlement which was probably different for all players.

2. All players and Lawyers and Essendon find common ground that is acceptable to all parties for all players.

3. Essendon say to current players who also happen to be renegotiating contracts, "hey Dyson, why dont you take $150k off your taxable salary and lets just add it to your settlement account?"

4. Lawyer says to Dyson, "thats a pretty good deal you'll save about $65k in tax and my fee will only go up by around $8k,"

5. Dyson accepts the deal and he, the lawyer and the club all win.

6. No non Essendon player has received an amount less than they agreed to by negotiation.


Its not really that hard to figure out.
 

LB#16

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Posts
4,446
Likes
4,579
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Miami Heat
Yep, not a good result but thats what would have happened without the AFLs manipulation.
So the AFL prevented a club from damage that helps them profit by allowing them top up players like they would have any other. Let's just label it manipulation because we hate Essendon and wanted to see them die. That's reasonable.
 

Bunk Moreland

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 22, 2011
Posts
29,303
Likes
55,726
Location
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
I'm sorry but which bit about "no one receievd a lower figure than they were entitled to" do you not understand.

I'll try and make this simple for you

1. Lawyers negotiate with Essendon on behalf of all players to reach an agreed sum for settlement which was probably different for all players.

2. All players and Lawyers and Essendon find common ground that is acceptable to all parties for all players.

3. Essendon say to current players who also happen to be renegotiating contracts, "hey Dyson, why dont you take $150k off your taxable salary and lets just add it to your settlement account?"

4. Lawyer says to Dyson, "thats a pretty good deal you'll save about $65k in tax and my fee will only go up by around $8k,"

5. Dyson accepts the deal and he, the lawyer and the club all win.

6. No non Essendon player has received an amount less than they agreed to by negotiation.


Its not really that hard to figure out.
I understand the rubbish that's being said... it's just that it bears zero relationship to reality.

What lawyers do you deal with? I'll tell you exactly what happens in your little story, except in the real world...

5. The lawyer (who is representing Heppell as well as Paddy Ryder) says "great, now we'll add the equivalent amount to Paddy's settlement. Everybody wins."

6. And on it goes, to whatever imaginary dodgy cap advantage Essendon were trying to get with Heppell is multiplied by... oh, just 34 times.

7. Insurance company says no worries Essendon, we'll cover part of this to help you with the salary cap. It'd be our pleasure!

Or they don't cover it. In which case it just adds millions and millions more to Essendon's debt on top of a $10m annual loss. The bank is happy to extend the overdraft. They don't mind!

Yep, makes perfect sense.
 
Top Bottom