Scandal Hawthorn Trade Manipulation

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

GCB85 said:
Payments to AFL clubs from Financial report 2015
HAWTHORN
$12,358,525
SYDNEY SWANS
$12,235,645


In 2015, Sydney recorded their 5 successive year of profit.

Any other myths you'd like to pedal?
Click to expand...

That Hawthorn 2015 number includes prize money it earned from winning the premiership. Take that out and Sydney got close to an extra million. But let's not let facts get in the way.
 
Abasi said:
So the AFL sign off on a free agency agreement and then investigate it twice.

Damo, at it again.
Click to expand...
The Hawks lodged the the paperwork, the AFL questioned them over it (like they do to all clubs) and the Hawks were questioned again. So all clubs are questioned at least once before anything is ratified and the Hawks were questioned a second time, presumably before it was signed off, although I'm not certain of that. So the AFL didn't "investigate them twice" after signing the agreement.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-17/afl-quizzes-hawthorn-for-a-second-time-over-vickery-deal
The Hawks lodged a two-year deal for Vickery believed to be worth about $1 million a week ago, but were called into League headquarters again on Monday morning when AFL officials questioned them once more about the mechanics of the Vickery deal.
Click to expand...

Rival clubs have privately expressed concerns about whether the Vickery deal was structured to ensure the spearhead got to Waverley and Richmond was compensated with an attractive pick.
Click to expand...

The AFL have signed off on it, but if the contract is extended for a sum well below the current $500k a year, then the AFL will probably take action, which would be the right thing to do.

That report is from Nick Bowen and Matt Thompson, not Barrett (If that's who you mean by 'Damo').
 
D-N-R said:
The Hawks lodged the the paperwork, the AFL questioned them over it (like they do to all clubs) and the Hawks were questioned again. So all clubs are questioned at least once before anything is ratified and the Hawks were questioned a second time, presumably before it was signed off, although I'm not certain of that. So the AFL didn't "investigate them twice" after signing the agreement.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-17/afl-quizzes-hawthorn-for-a-second-time-over-vickery-deal




The AFL have signed off on it, but if the contract is extended for a sum well below the current $500k a year, then the AFL will probably take action, which would be the right thing to do.

That report is from Nick Bowen and Matt Thompson, not Barrett (If that's who you mean by 'Damo').
Click to expand...
Yes, but they belong together. Three clowns, the lot of them.
 
D-N-R said:
The Hawks lodged the the paperwork, the AFL questioned them over it (like they do to all clubs) and the Hawks were questioned again. So all clubs are questioned at least once before anything is ratified and the Hawks were questioned a second time, presumably before it was signed off, although I'm not certain of that. So the AFL didn't "investigate them twice" after signing the agreement.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-17/afl-quizzes-hawthorn-for-a-second-time-over-vickery-deal




The AFL have signed off on it, but if the contract is extended for a sum well below the current $500k a year, then the AFL will probably take action, which would be the right thing to do.

That report is from Nick Bowen and Matt Thompson, not Barrett (If that's who you mean by 'Damo').
Click to expand...
So it's all good then, apart from a few snivelling squealers.
Not a concern.
 
D-N-R said:
The AFL have signed off on it, but if the contract is extended for a sum well below the current $500k a year, then the AFL will probably take action, which would be the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
If Vickery in 3 years time is worth about 250K and the Hawks offer that and he accepts that then there is nothing the AFL can do.
 
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...

Can you provide a link / quote of the rule that you believe has been breached?

Seems like a subjective argument. Teams look for loop holes to exploit every year. AFL closes some and lets others go.
 
D-N-R said:
The Hawks lodged the the paperwork, the AFL questioned them over it (like they do to all clubs) and the Hawks were questioned again. So all clubs are questioned at least once before anything is ratified and the Hawks were questioned a second time, presumably before it was signed off, although I'm not certain of that. So the AFL didn't "investigate them twice" after signing the agreement.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-17/afl-quizzes-hawthorn-for-a-second-time-over-vickery-deal




The AFL have signed off on it, but if the contract is extended for a sum well below the current $500k a year, then the AFL will probably take action, which would be the right thing to do.

That report is from Nick Bowen and Matt Thompson, not Barrett (If that's who you mean by 'Damo').
Click to expand...
They won't do s**t. Nuttin. We'll pay him in bark chips, and thats the truth.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

syl97 said:
That Hawthorn 2015 number includes prize money it earned from winning the premiership. Take that out and Sydney got close to an extra million. But let's not let facts get in the way.
Click to expand...

The seals at the zoo have a new ball, it's always fun. Where would Big Footy posters be without their weekly Hawthorn paranoia to whinge about? :)
 
I don't get the issue with two year 'overs' contracts. What do people think would have happened if O'Meara went into the draft? He'd have been on as much as Hawthorn could pay him for two years.

The only thing wrong with the Vickery signing is that the AFL saw fit to give band 3 compo for a two year contract. And that Hawthorn signed Vickery.
 
blue harvest said:
If Vickery in 3 years time is worth about 250K and the Hawks offer that and he accepts that then there is nothing the AFL can do.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find the AFL can do quite a lot, as Sydney discovered with their trade ban.
Goady138 said:
So it's all good then, apart from a few snivelling squealers.
Not a concern.
Click to expand...
It never cease to amaze me how naked self interest can make fans blind to reality. West Coast fans were like that with Cousins and Essendon fans with 'the saga'.

Now, Hawk fans can't see that paying over-inflated, short-term contracts to pry free-agents loose from clubs would be bad for the game. But "it's all good because it's my club". It's this sort of short-sighted, self interest that lead the VFL to the brink of bankruptcy so they had to create a commission to protect the clubs from themselves.
 
D-N-R said:
I think you'll find the AFL can do quite a lot, as Sydney discovered with their trade ban.

It never cease to amaze me how naked self interest can make fans blind to reality. West Coast fans were like that with Cousins and Essendon fans with 'the saga'.

Now, Hawk fans can't see that paying over-inflated, short-term contracts to pry free-agents loose from clubs would be bad for the game. But "it's all good because it's my club". It's this sort of short-sighted, self interest that lead the VFL to the brink of bankruptcy so they had to create a commission to protect the clubs from themselves.
Click to expand...
Ok. I see.
Keep on knocking yourself off over what ever it is your fighting for.
Good luck.
 
blue harvest said:
If Vickery in 3 years time is worth about 250K and the Hawks offer that and he accepts that then there is nothing the AFL can do.
Click to expand...

Do you actually think he can get worse in 2 years at the Hawks then his output @ Richmond? If so, he will be a gun in your VFL team next year and the year after.
 
LuvtheKangas said:
"typo"

LOL.
Click to expand...
Alternatively - you can believe that the PR team knew ALL ABOUT the dodgy approach to presenting contracts to the AFL in a way that would improve Richmond's (not hawthorn's, by the way) draft position and made this enormous Freudian slip when the article was first published.

That sounds reasonable.
 
Leather Poisoning said:
Alternatively - you can believe that the PR team knew ALL ABOUT the dodgy approach to presenting contracts to the AFL in a way that would improve Richmond's (not hawthorn's, by the way) draft position and made this enormous Freudian slip when the article was first published.

That sounds reasonable.
Click to expand...

What doesn't sound reasonable is pretending you think the only improved outcome of the deal was for Richmond.

And a 26yo happy to take a 2 year contract when he has been given a strong bargaining also sounds legit. :thumbsu:
 
LuvtheKangas said:
What doesn't sound reasonable is pretending you think the only improved outcome of the deal was for Richmond.

And a 26yo happy to take a 2 year contract when he has been given a strong bargaining also sounds legit. :thumbsu:
Click to expand...
How would it benefit Hawthorn to pretend it was a 2 year deal when it was actually 3 years?

And the 26 year old we're talking about is Tyrone Vickery. There really wasn't a whole bunch of clubs fighting for his services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top