Rumour JUH

[MagpieJo]

The nature of contract law is that, eventually it has to be measured though, that's the point. The facts get laid out and then someone considers them.


Yes which is why the AFL is obligated to stand up in defence of its clubs. Once the AFL's set up a system where there are standard terms to contracts and it imposes a salary cap upon its clubs, JUH isn't only taking advantage of the Western Bulldogs, he's also taking advantage of the AFL by 'imbalancing' their interest in competitive balance. But it's a cost the AFL can more readily absorb, and their interest is more abstract in the sense of competitive balance (the cost to the AFL is that they have 1 of their 17 clubs that practically had one lessor list spot and 800k less in their salary cap, which goes against their clear competitive balance interest, but only to a small extent. The cost to the Dogs is much more significant, his actions led to it it being far more challenging for the Dogs to win games last year.

I would hope that the AFL in its next round of negotiations with the AFLPA, as a representation of the clubs, is far more willing to challenge the AFLPA in having to pay players this way, and state that they are being prepared to go to court as their defence.


I personally wouldn't characterise the expectations of players to have to make more effort to engage in good faith to treat their own mental health that they're claiming debilitates them from conducting their contractual duty to train and play for their club as being 'extremely restrictive'.

i agree totally with what you are saying. pretty over these entitled overpaid lucky to be in jobs they love, lucky to set themselves up for life in just a few short years if they knuckle down! and yes, the club suffers terribly, it may well be Bobby cost us a grand final appearance last season. They have a very grown up, professional contract, its time they appreciate it and act like they deserve it!

the way mental health problems get chucked around these days is an absolute insult to genuine sufferers who give everything they have to beat it. And AFL is disgraceful the way they have used that term.

 

[1970crow]

Work related? Come on man, they're drug related. I don't think most people would look too kindly on someone trying to screw over a business like that.

Up to “speed”. Heh.

The truth is irrelevant, it’s what can be argued in court. Your average grunt on award wages you sack in a heartbeat, and they’re likely too stupid to know if it may have been unfair under workplace law. When it’s a guy on $800k/year, with the support of the AFLPA, it’s a different story. We were desperate to sack Stengle, but weren’t able to. Nowhere near as costly, but we ended up paying out his contract to get him off the books.

 

[bresker]

Essentially all wages are funnelled through TV deal, sponsorships etc to clubs via the AFL .We may put the money in his bank account , but those at the top have a say on his future.

 

[bresker]

Not setting the workd alight on the ressies . Looks well off the pace

 

[craffles]

Not setting the workd alight on the ressies . Looks well off the pace

Has you on toast though so that’s one win

 

[maddog37]

Has you on toast though so that’s one win

One is more than your mob looks like getting for a fair while too. Back in your box old mate.

 

[craffles]

One is more than your mob looks like getting for a fair while too. Back in your box old mate.

Oi mad dog ya mad dogg

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No Cookies | CODE Sports

No Cookies | CODE Sports

www.codesports.com.au

This article echoes a lot of what I have said in this thread.

It's highly likely that the AFL will look to have stricter rules in this area for what a standard AFL player contract looks like, next time they go to the negotiating table for the next CBA.

I think a way to get around this would perhaps to have a higher minimum payment match fees for non-draftee contracts. Perhaps players should have a minimum $15k for actually playing in a game, for every game they play. It would mean that someone like Jamarra, in missing 23 games for the Dogs last year, was only paid $550k instead of $800k.

 

[GreyCrow]

No Cookies | CODE Sports

No Cookies | CODE Sports

www.codesports.com.au

This article echoes a lot of what I have said in this thread.

It's highly likely that the AFL will look to have stricter rules in this area for what a standard AFL player contract looks like, next time they go to the negotiating table for the next CBA.

I think a way to get around this would perhaps to have a higher minimum payment match fees for non-draftee contracts. Perhaps players should have a minimum $15k for actually playing in a game, for every game they play. It would mean that someone like Jamarra, in missing 23 games for the Dogs last year, was only paid $550k instead of $800k.

US Sports do this well. They have a sign on bonus which is guaranteed then KPIs need to be met for further payment - sometimes idiot GMs still stuff up but its mostly in control

Noting that US Sports salaries are transparent

 

[threenewpadlocks]

US Sports do this well. They have a sign on bonus which is guaranteed then KPIs need to be met for further payment - sometimes idiot GMs still stuff up but its mostly in control

Noting that US Sports salaries are transparent

It might also save clubs from dumb contracts.

Essendon got themselves in a bind in Dylan Shiel's contract when they didn't put a common $5k or $10k a game match payment into his deal, by essentially guaranteeing the full amount irrespective of fitness and form, for example. So when he missed games to injury they weren't able to shave off 10% 20% or whatever off his contract via taking away payments for his not playing games.

 

[GreyCrow]

It might also save clubs from dumb contracts.

Essendon got themselves in a bind in Dylan Shiel's contract when they didn't put a common $5k or $10k a game match payment into his deal, by essentially guaranteeing the full amount irrespective of fitness and form, for example. So when he missed games to injury they weren't able to shave off 10% 20% or whatever off his contract via taking away payments for his not playing games.

The silly thing is the AFL allows/ed extra in the salary cap when injuries occurred and rookies and 1st year players added to the match payments

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The silly thing is the AFL allows/ed extra in the salary cap when injuries occurred and rookies and 1st year players added to the match payments

The issue is when you cover for players with injuries but without high match payments/bonuses but guaranteed money, with players that are not on draftee contracts but are on high match payments and potential bonuses if they play well. Those replacement players are not on standardjsed draftee/minimum/rookie contracts and therefore there is far more flexibility and variance in the contracts clubs sign with these older players regarding match payments and bonuses (and no salary cap relief unlike if you do play a draftee more than expected).

Collingwood ran into the issue too in the Ned Guy era when they were up against the cap and had to move on Treloar/Grundy.