Scandal Hawthorn Trade Manipulation

Remove this Banner 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...
When he signs up for $200K in year 3 he can just say he is taking unders to keep the team together for a premiership tilt.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Barry_Badrinath said:
"Fudge the numbers"? You've made it sound as bad as possible here and it still sounds harmless.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to hold the opinion that falsifying contracts to alter draft compo picks and circumvent player trading is 'harmless', but not everyone will agree with you and I fully expect the AFL to gloss over it anyway.
 
blue harvest said:
When he signs up for $200K in year 3 he can just say he is taking unders to keep the team together for a premiership tilt.
Click to expand...
Agreed. There's ways they can lie and get around it, which is why I expect the AFL to do nothing, but if the contract is already agreed on, it should be included in the paperwork lodged with the AFL and would affect the compo pick. By not doing that, they are cheating. There might be ways around it, but it doesn't mean it's right.
 
Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods said:
You're entitled to hold the opinion that falsifying contracts to alter draft compo picks and circumvent player trading is 'harmless', but not everyone will agree with you and I fully expect the AFL to gloss over it anyway.
Click to expand...

Falsify
Verb
1. alter (information, a document, or evidence) so as to mislead.
2. prove (a statement or theory) to be false.

Not even close.

Richmond had every right to match Vickery's contract to force a trade. Hawthorn offered Tyrone a salary high enough to ensure they wouldn't. That's what happened.
 
Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods said:
You're entitled to hold the opinion that falsifying contracts to alter draft compo picks and circumvent player trading is 'harmless', but not everyone will agree with you and I fully expect the AFL to gloss over it anyway.
Click to expand...

Falsify
Verb
1. alter (information, a document, or evidence) so as to mislead.
2. prove (a statement or theory) to be false.

Not even close.

Richmond had every right to match Vickery's contract to force a trade. Hawthorn offered Tyrone a salary high enough to ensure they wouldn't. That's what happened.
 
Barry_Badrinath said:
Falsify
Verb
1. alter (information, a document, or evidence) so as to mislead.
2. prove (a statement or theory) to be false.

Not even close.

Richmond had every right to match Vickery's contract to force a trade. Hawthorn offered Tyrone a salary high enough to ensure they wouldn't. That's what happened.
Click to expand...
Are you actually following this through properly? The accusation (whether true or false) is that Richmond would have matched a 3 year $1.2m contract and forced a trade, but knowing that Hawks didn't have a lot of picks to trade with and that they would be more inclined to use those picks on Mitchell and JOM, leaving Ty behind at Richmond with his matched offer, they came to a deal:
Vickery gets his 3 year $1.2m deal with Hawks, Hawks falsify the docs lodged with AFL to state a 2 year deal for $1m, Richmond get a 2nd round compo pick from AFL based on 2 year deal on higher money. It's more than they would have got in a trade from Hawks, because Hawks likely would have offered a 3rd, if anything at all and likely just walked away.

They have altered a document (Vickery's contract), so as to mislead the AFL into giving Richmond a higher compo pick.
 
Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods said:
You're entitled to hold the opinion that falsifying contracts to alter draft compo picks and circumvent player trading is 'harmless', but not everyone will agree with you and I fully expect the AFL to gloss over it anyway.
Click to expand...
Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods said:
Are you actually following this through properly? The accusation (whether true or false) is that Richmond would have matched a 3 year $1.2m contract and forced a trade, but knowing that Hawks didn't have a lot of picks to trade with and that they would be more inclined to use those picks on Mitchell and JOM, leaving Ty behind at Richmond with his matched offer, they came to a deal:
Vickery gets his 3 year $1.2m deal with Hawks, Hawks falsify the docs lodged with AFL to state a 2 year deal for $1m, Richmond get a 2nd round compo pick from AFL based on 2 year deal on higher money. It's more than they would have got in a trade from Hawks, because Hawks likely would have offered a 3rd, if anything at all and likely just walked away.

They have altered a document (Vickery's contract), so as to mislead the AFL into giving Richmond a higher compo pick.
Click to expand...

So you're saying Hawthorn have signed him on a 3 year deal but told the AFL it's only a 2 year deal? Where has this been alleged?
 
Barry_Badrinath said:
So you're saying Hawthorn have signed him on a 3 year deal but told the AFL it's only a 2 year deal? Where has this been alleged?
Click to expand...
Other clubs have asked the AFL to look into it as they think something isn't right.
Hawks original press release stated a 3 year deal. Might have simply been a typo. Might have been a case of somebody subconsciously using the 'wrong' deal on the memo.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods said:
Are you actually following this through properly? The accusation (whether true or false) is that Richmond would have matched a 3 year $1.2m contract and forced a trade, but knowing that Hawks didn't have a lot of picks to trade with and that they would be more inclined to use those picks on Mitchell and JOM, leaving Ty behind at Richmond with his matched offer, they came to a deal:
Vickery gets his 3 year $1.2m deal with Hawks, Hawks falsify the docs lodged with AFL to state a 2 year deal for $1m, Richmond get a 2nd round compo pick from AFL based on 2 year deal on higher money. It's more than they would have got in a trade from Hawks, because Hawks likely would have offered a 3rd, if anything at all and likely just walked away.

They have altered a document (Vickery's contract), so as to mislead the AFL into giving Richmond a higher compo pick.
Click to expand...

Hawthorn don't need to have spoken to Richmond or made any arrangement with Richmond

If you are wanting to get a free agent you set the terms of the contract in a way that you don't think the other club will match

They could have spoken to Ty about offering him 2 years on good money and then we'll see for future years

Ty goes sure $500k for years 1 and 2 and then if i get an extension probably $200k - no dramas with that

Richmond sees $500k for years 1 and 2, think that's too much $$$ and sounding out the AFL discovering that there's decent compo decide not to match
 
oh fgs! First, when isn't it that all that is hawthorn not dominating the scandals/ rumours board?
 
Last edited:
deathevocation said:
Click to expand...

Lols. It must be infuriating being a hawthorn fan. Hawthorn have taken everything that was good away from you. Not only that but they are turning it into sh!te for you, but it's it's ok, because of the flags you've got the respect of the rest of us, not.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
So Vickery's worth $500k a year. Right? Didn't think so. More like $300k per year.

So he gets offered a long term contract. Right? Well he did. But all of a sudden that contract is only 2 years.

Odd isn't it?

So Hawthorn are answering questions as to why they would offer a 2 year $500k deal to a 26yo key position forward. Seems as though it was about getting the Tigers a good compo pick so they wouldn't match what is probably going to be average $300k over 4 years.

They're a dodgy team at Hawthorn.
Click to expand...

This is rich coming from a Swans fan.... cough, Buddy, cough, Tippett....
 
blitzer said:
Look maybe it is BUT if Vickery is on a 2 year contract at 600K and he plays well for 2 years then there's nothing to stop him turning around and saying - "Hey i deserve this level of pay and if you're not willing to keep paying me at this level then I want a trade to someone who will".

Hawks have to bear this risk (although to be honest the bigger risk is that he is just not very good). So ultimately I see nothing wrong with this arrangement.
Click to expand...
Yeahp. Because he will want to leave for another club again. Why come then? He will stay an actually could take 450k or just stay at 500k if he is good
 
I thought this was about our mates rates trades with Carlton to get the O'Meara take through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top