Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Any facts on this, or are you just making stuff up?
the fact this happened, by itself, isn't an issue
the fact this happened, and wasn't disclosed, suggests this is a massive issue
The AFL never learn. Who ever was in charge at the time has to go.
No, they could have folded.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-16/another-bad-day-for-essendon-with-9.8m-loss/8028812
Yep, just making s**t up. Note the number provided in the club's financial report is actually just an estimate as they still had ongoing claims.
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.
The Rising Asterisk.How many more years until McGrath retires? Then I might consider Essendon legitimate.
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).
Is there a record of these extra payments?
I might consider Trent Cotchin legitimate too except he was only the second best player in 2012 and shouldve been rubbed out and missed the 2017 grand final.How many more years until McGrath retires? Then I might consider Essendon legitimate.
May have been 2nd best player but was 1st best and fairest player.I might consider Trent Cotchin legitimate too except he was only the second best player in 2012
SEETHINGQuick 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.
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.
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?
Daniher as well. At the time I remember how small his contract seemed (in the context of boyd $1 million)
True, but I do believe Daniher's contract is indeed well below what he'd get on the open market.Boyd is over paid though so it’s unfair to use that as the measuring stick
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?
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.
How many more years until McGrath retires? Then I might consider Essendon legitimate.
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...ensation-with-18-players-20161122-gsupyp.htmlIs there a record of these extra payments?
He might need that long to play in a winning final.About 15..but he might play until he’s 40..so could be as many as 20.
How many more years until McGrath retires? Then I might consider Essendon legitimate.
Without AFL intervention the club would have folded. The were allowed to make payments which should have come under salary cap.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