Scandal Hawthorn Trade Manipulation

Remove this Banner Ad

The only problem would be if there was a clause saying he'll play for massive unders in year three (e.g. a trigger). Probably not breaking rules, but enough to piss off the other clubs whose picks get pushed back by the Vickery compo pick.

There might be a problem if they spoke to Richmond and they said "if you offer 400k we match it, but if you offer 500k we don't", which would be collusion between the clubs and is probably draft tampering.

The worst case would be if there wasn't a number on the trigger clause, but someone admitted to someone that there was a handshake agreement that he'd take less in year 3 and 4. If that happened, that's a clear out-of-contract agreement and would be draft tampering.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

replicant said:
The only problem would be if there was a clause saying he'll play for massive unders in year three (e.g. a trigger). Probably not breaking rules, but enough to piss off the other clubs whose picks get pushed back by the Vickery compo pick.

There might be a problem if they spoke to Richmond and they said "if you offer 400k we match it, but if you offer 500k we don't", which would be collusion between the clubs and is probably draft tampering.

The worst case would be if there wasn't a number on the trigger clause, but someone admitted to someone that there was a handshake agreement that he'd take less in year 3 and 4. If that happened, that's a clear out-of-contract agreement and would be draft tampering.
Click to expand...

Is it? Teams debate the value of players all the time, I can't see this discussion being classified as tampering.

It all comes down to whether or not Hawthorn have formally offered him a third year. If they have, they're in s**t. If they haven't there isn't a thing anyone can do about it, implied or otherwise. That said there is also no legal grounds for HFC to force Vickery to agree to a third year at reduced wages when that time comes.
 
Cynic said:
Is it? Teams debate the value of players all the time, I can't see this discussion being classified as tampering.

It all comes down to whether or not Hawthorn have formally offered him a third year. If they have, they're in s**t. If they haven't there isn't a thing anyone can do about it, implied or otherwise. That said there is also no legal grounds for HFC to force Vickery to agree to a third year at reduced wages when that time comes.
Click to expand...
The discussion would be trouble i think.

Hawks have to offer what they offer. They can't adjust the offer based on asking how Richmond will react. In theory the offer should only be told to Richmond when it is made, and they can then decide to match or not. Two clubs having discussions on how to manipulate the system for mutual benefit would be tampering, 100%.
 
replicant said:
The discussion would be trouble i think.

Hawks have to offer what they offer. They can't adjust the offer based on asking how Richmond will react. In theory the offer should only be told to Richmond when it is made, and they can then decide to match or not. Two clubs having discussions on how to manipulate the system for mutual benefit would be tampering, 100%.
Click to expand...

So clubs never have discussions prior to making offers? Really?

That is just ridiculous.
 
replicant said:
The discussion would be trouble i think.

Hawks have to offer what they offer. They can't adjust the offer based on asking how Richmond will react. In theory the offer should only be told to Richmond when it is made, and they can then decide to match or not. Two clubs having discussions on how to manipulate the system for mutual benefit would be tampering, 100%.
Click to expand...

How is it mutual benefit? In any circumstance in which HFC over pays for Vickery don't we lose out?
 
Cynic said:
How is it mutual benefit? In any circumstance in which HFC over pays for Vickery don't we lose out?
Click to expand...
I'm interested in finding out for sure. Does anyone know where to find the actual rules for free agency? I can find summaries, but not the full rules.
 
I think most are missing the point of the problem. Hawks seem to have fudged the numbers on the contract in order to get Richmond a better compo pick so that they agree not to match the offer and force a trade. Hawks couldn't get Ty if they had to trade for him because they needed their picks to focus on JOM and Mitchell. Tigers wouldn't have gotten the same level of compo if Hawks trade for him.
A 2 year deal @ $500k p.a. gets them a 2nd round compo. A 3 year deal @ an average of $400k p.a. would only get them a 3rd rounder as compo.
If they've made a side deal with Vickery that he will be guaranteed a 3rd year at $200k, that effectively makes it 3 years for $1.2m, but front loaded for the first 2 years. Not 2 years for $1m as stated in their paperwork to the AFL.
It was odd that their original press release stated a 3 year deal. It might have been a typo, but it deserves to be looked at again. I don't expect the AFL to do anything about it though.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods said:
I think most are missing the point of the problem. Hawks seem to have fudged the numbers on the contract in order to get Richmond a better compo pick so that they agree not to match the offer and force a trade. Hawks couldn't get Ty if they had to trade for him because they needed their picks to focus on JOM and Mitchell. Tigers wouldn't have gotten the same level of compo if Hawks trade for him.
A 2 year deal @ $500k p.a. gets them a 2nd round compo. A 3 year deal @ an average of $400k p.a. would only get them a 3rd rounder as compo.
If they've made a side deal with Vickery that he will be guaranteed a 3rd year at $200k, that effectively makes it 3 years for $1.2m, but front loaded for the first 2 years. Not 2 years for $1m as stated in their paperwork to the AFL.
It was odd that their original press release stated a 3 year deal. It might have been a typo, but it deserves to be looked at again. I don't expect the AFL to do anything about it though.
Click to expand...
Excellent summary, thanks.
 
Cynic said:
Is it? Teams debate the value of players all the time, I can't see this discussion being classified as tampering.

It all comes down to whether or not Hawthorn have formally offered him a third year. If they have, they're in s**t. If they haven't there isn't a thing anyone can do about it, implied or otherwise. That said there is also no legal grounds for HFC to force Vickery to agree to a third year at reduced wages when that time comes.
Click to expand...

I don't think they can officially discuss FA contract offers, but they just use managers as 3rd parties anyway. Richmond talking to Vickery's manager talking to Hawthorn isn't all that different to Richmond just talking to Hawthorn.

I have no issue with Hawthorn and Richmond agreeing a contract that gives Richmond better compo in return for not matching the offer nor do I have an issue with Vickery being signed on a two year deal with a nudge nudge wink wink agreement that he'll get a reduced contract after that. With Vickery being announced as signed on a 3 year deal then quickly edited by Shane to 2 years it looks shady, though. I also don't think a two year contract should earn band 3 compo.
 
Tuco said:
Free Agency rules only require a 2 year contract from memory.

What's the problem again? We think hes on a longer contract but can't prove it?

Swans would get a 2 year trade ban for following the rules like this of course.
Click to expand...
You started off sounding intelligent or at least level headed

you then prove otherwise with your last line
 
Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods said:
I think most are missing the point of the problem. Hawks seem to have fudged the numbers on the contract in order to get Richmond a better compo pick so that they agree not to match the offer and force a trade. Hawks couldn't get Ty if they had to trade for him because they needed their picks to focus on JOM and Mitchell. Tigers wouldn't have gotten the same level of compo if Hawks trade for him.
A 2 year deal @ $500k p.a. gets them a 2nd round compo. A 3 year deal @ an average of $400k p.a. would only get them a 3rd rounder as compo.
If they've made a side deal with Vickery that he will be guaranteed a 3rd year at $200k, that effectively makes it 3 years for $1.2m, but front loaded for the first 2 years. Not 2 years for $1m as stated in their paperwork to the AFL.
It was odd that their original press release stated a 3 year deal. It might have been a typo, but it deserves to be looked at again. I don't expect the AFL to do anything about it though.
Click to expand...
How do you know this, when even the clubs don't know.

Clubs are advised on what they can expect but until the deal is signed they don't actually know. Its at the corrupt AFL's discretion to decide

Compo is decided on length of contract as well as $$
 
Barry_Badrinath said:
Neither club has done anything wrong. Compo picks need to be done away with.
Click to expand...
Not arguing the validity of compo picks, but if they've deliberately fudged the numbers in order to get Richmond a better pick and did so on the understanding that Richmond wouldn't match and force a trade that Hawks couldn't afford to do, then yes, they've done something wrong.
 
Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods said:
Not arguing the validity of compo picks, but if they've deliberately fudged the numbers in order to get Richmond a better pick and did so on the understanding that Richmond wouldn't match and force a trade that Hawks couldn't afford to do, then yes, they've done something wrong.
Click to expand...

"Fudge the numbers"? You've made it sound as bad as possible here and it still sounds harmless.
 
wahawk said:
You started off sounding intelligent or at least level headed

you then prove otherwise with your last line
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should use more emoticons and pretty pictures so you can tell when I'm joking. More your level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top