Recommitted Joe Daniher 2019 [requested a trade to Sydney - didn't get there]

[zeggie]

It's common knowledge

It only applies to RFA's and not FA's

Yeah, people say this, yet nobody can pinpoint any clause, rule or regulation backing this up.

Why is that?

 

[Loken]

Yeah, people say this, yet nobody can pinpoint any clause, rule or regulation backing this up.

Why is that?

No idea.

 

[Loken]

Yeah, people say this, yet nobody can pinpoint any clause, rule or regulation backing this up.

Why is that?

Here's a small quote from an Age article on the Franklin deal.

The AFL has confirmed that the Swans must include Franklin's contract terms in each of the nine years of the contract, irrespective of how long he plays.

Revealed: Buddy Franklin to profit heavily in later years of mega-deal

<b>EXCLUSIVE</b> Superstar forward's payments due to peak in the seventh and eighth seasons.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Superstar swan]

Worsfolds comments dont make any sense... im not overky confident we land him but woosh talking out of his ass... obviously unless daniher requests trade they wont trade him but if he does they have to trade him

 

[HirdyLannister]

Worsfolds comments dont make any sense... im not overky confident we land him but woosh talking out of his ass... obviously unless daniher requests trade they wont trade him but if he does they have to trade him

Don't have to trade him if request since he is contracted, look at Gibbs, Kelly from previous years.

 

[Punts]

When is the dons bnf?

 

[zeggie]

Here's a small quote from an Age article on the Franklin deal.

Revealed: Buddy Franklin to profit heavily in later years of mega-deal

<b>EXCLUSIVE</b> Superstar forward's payments due to peak in the seventh and eighth seasons.

www.theage.com.au

All due respect that article says nothing. It also refers the old CBA which has been drastically changed.

I have a feeling some are referring to the old retirement/compensation scheme.

Again happy to be corrected, but there is nothing in the rules saying a RFA deal differs how TPP of the incoming club operates for that deal. You can't just "pay out" a player and "forget" about that TPP cap space.

Sydney trading for him this year compared to a RFA next year makes no difference to their TPP cap.

 

[Unfazed]

Worsfolds comments dont make any sense... im not overky confident we land him but woosh talking out of his ass... obviously unless daniher requests trade they wont trade him but if he does they have to trade him

He's signalling that if you want him you're not getting him cheap.

 

[Lore]

When is the dons bnf?

October 4 iirc

 

[Loken]

All due respect that article says nothing. It also refers the old CBA which has been drastically changed.

I have a feeling some are referring to the old retirement/compensation scheme.

Again happy to be corrected, but there is nothing in the rules saying a RFA deal differs how TPP of the incoming club operates for that deal. You can't just "pay out" a player and "forget" about that TPP cap space.

Sydney trading for him this year compared to a RFA next year makes no difference to their TPP cap.

Are we are arguing two different things? Here is my understanding of how it works.

If you trade for a player and he retires mid way through his contract you don't wear that on your salary cap for the duration of the contract where as if you traded for him via RFA you do.

Happy to be shown to be wrong but that's my understanding of it.

 

[Tedeski]

he's a top 10 key forward at his best

11 games in 2 seasons suggests he's not at his best.

 

[eth-dog]

11 games in 2 seasons suggests he's not at his best.

So we walk away with him staying. What a terrible result.

 

[perplexed]

Whilst I think he would be happier at a club that treated him like a normal player I doubt he is considering a trade. And it doesn't seem likely any club would be interested in paying top dollar for such a risky player a year before he becomes a free agent. I think he'll retire or stay.

 

[Suma Magic]

Yeah, people say this, yet nobody can pinpoint any clause, rule or regulation backing this up.

Why is that?

Because the AFL loves discretion.

 

[dumdum]

October 4 iirc

wrong, try October 1 https://essendoncorporatehospitalit...gisterId=49231a20-5a8e-4ce1-a637-284305f35fed

 

[Lore]

wrong, try October 1 https://essendoncorporatehospitalit...gisterId=49231a20-5a8e-4ce1-a637-284305f35fed

Okay thanks


Also why is a brissy fan so interested in all things Essendon

 

[KingRichardReynolds]

Worsfolds comments dont make any sense... im not overky confident we land him but woosh talking out of his ass... obviously unless daniher requests trade they wont trade him but if he does they have to trade him

They probably don’t make sense to you as you don’t understand the trade rules, let me fill you in:
-contracted players can only be traded, in which case their current club has total control. The player can ask for a trade to any club if they want but unless their current club agrees to the trade with the nominated club the player must fulfill their contract. So Joe can say he wants to be traded to Sydney but unless Essendon agrees he has to stay for at least another year
-restricted free agents: (Joe in 2020) player can nominate a club, but current club can match any bid and either force the player to stay or force a trade. So end of next yr, if Joe nominated Sydney - Essendon can match the bid and force Sydney to trade and again must satisfy any Essendon demands or he stays for however long the bid terms by the nominated club were.

Summary, Essendon holds all the cards. Have said they want to keep him, so if Sydney want him and IF he wants to go, Sydney would have to pay way over what he is even worth to pry him out.

 

[blitzer]

Joe will probably stay at Essendon. There may be a chance he retires (who knows) on that front. I doubt he gets traded to Swans because they won't offer enough for us to consider parting with him voluntarily.

 

[dumdum]

Okay thanks


Also why is a brissy fan so interested in all things Essendon

dunno, question is, if your an " Essendon " Fan why didnt you at least get it right

 

[Vindicater]

Whilst I think he would be happier at a club that treated him like a normal player I doubt he is considering a trade. And it doesn't seem likely any club would be interested in paying top dollar for such a risky player a year before he becomes a free agent. I think he'll retire or stay.

What does this even mean

 

[zeggie]

Are we are arguing two different things? Here is my understanding of how it works.

If you trade for a player and he retires mid way through his contract you don't wear that on your salary cap for the duration of the contract where as if you traded for him via RFA you do.

Happy to be shown to be wrong but that's my understanding of it.

That's exactly what we're talking about.

Like I said, there is nothing to back up your understanding. I can't show you wrong as there is nothing to show in any AFL Rules or Regs.

Several comments saying Swans are "better off" trading this year rather than as RFA, due to TPP (salary cap) being "locked in" if he retires/cooked early, aren't based on anything literal. Even a regular player retiring doesn't reduce/negate their contract.

 

[Lore]

While the AFL was angry about Sydney's bold and secretive raid on Franklin (they'd wanted him at the Giants), there was still a clear rationale for their ruling that the deal must remain in the salary cap: if clubs were not compelled to honour official offers to high priced free agents and were allowed to tear up those contracts, teams could manipulate and rort the matching system.

Geelong, for example, could have offered Patrick Dangerfield $10 million over five years and then soon changed it to $5 million over six years, stopping Adelaide from the opportunity to match, as per the rules.

The Franklin contract made no sense for Hawthorn, who were in the throes of winning premierships and could not afford to pay one player for that long, on those rates. Hawthorn's offer to Franklin was $5 million over five years (and would have ended last year). The Hawks acknowledged they would have lost players and their recruiting hands would have been tied. They didn't contemplate matching the deal for a second.

Why Buddy Franklin is almost untradeable

The suggestion that Buddy Franklin could be traded by the Swans is a fantasy. It could only happen if the Swans paid some of the backloaded mega contract

www.theage.com.au

It's apparently part of the matching system and the rationale is there for it. Looking at the old CBA there is provision for the general counsel to make decisions about what counts in the TPP and what doesn't, so it might come under that. The new CBA hasn't added anything else about the retirement of a free agent so whatever it is it's tied into something we don't currently have access to except where it's been confirmed by AFL House.

In this case Jake Niall seems to be all over it, I suppose you could tweet @ him and ask where he got his info/whether it applies to all free agents or just Buddy.



In this case though Joe isn't a free agent until next year, so its an argument that's probably best had once he actually is a free agent, surely.

 

[Lore]

dunno, question is, if your an " Essendon " Fan why didnt you at least get it right

No need to be snarky about it, thanks. If you're actually an Essendon fan I can get your club supported changed for you, since you can't do it yourself.

Punts asked a question which no one else had bothered to answer, so I gave what I knew to the best of my knowledge with the caveat "iirc" (which is "if I remember correctly"). Unfortunately that week is a very busy week for a DTFA board mod, it's also the week right after the grand final, the week of the draft combine, and the start of the free agency period. Bit tricky to keep all the dates straight without looking it up, which wasn't immediately accessible when I posted.

 

[dumdum]

No need to be snarky about it, thanks. If you're actually an Essendon fan I can get your club supported changed for you, since you can't do it yourself.

Punts asked a question which no one else had bothered to answer, so I gave what I knew to the best of my knowledge with the caveat "iirc" (which is "if I remember correctly"). Unfortunately that week is a very busy week for a DTFA board mod, it's also the week right after the grand final, the week of the draft combine, and the start of the free agency period. Bit tricky to keep all the dates straight without looking it up, which wasn't immediately accessible when I posted.

all you had to do was go to the AFL website an then click on the EFC logo which would of taken you to the Essendon website an you would of gotten your answer. but anyway thats enough from me about it.

 

[Lore]

all you had to do was go to the AFL website an then click on the EFC logo which would of taken you to the Essendon website an you would of gotten your answer. but anyway thats enough from me about it.

I'm glad you went to the effort of looking it up, thank you so much