News Leppitsch's contract extended until 2017

[The Flying Belgian]

The "coach X wouldn't have done better/worse" line of argument reminds me of the tired old Liberal Party line "whatever the economy is it would be worse under Labor" shtick. What is it about uncertainty that drives many of us crazy? The black and white crap that goes on here sometimes reminds me why I spend so much time away from here. There's little room for nuance. Opinion is OK, just. Substantiated opinion, great. Substantiated opinion with a willingness to be corrected or admit errors, brilliant.

I have no firm opinion on whether Leppa's contract extension is a good thing. I can understand the line that it's to avoid media scrutiny during the toughest part of our draw. There's been a distinct effort from the club to try and keep the good news stories coming and presenting a united front is important, especially after media reports last year. There's been mumblings in the media about how tough we have it, so some of the media are aware, but that won't stop the loudest of the hacks. But from a performance perspective, it would have been nice to see what we're putting out there. The unknown is how he goes about his job on a day-to-day basis. And as usual, we're really in no position whatsoever to know for certain.

If a brickie has a 5 day window to finish a house, but the monsoon comes down and he only gets 2/3rds of the way finished, does he get fired? Or do you look at the quality of work and assess the circumstances on their merits?

 

[Ironmonger]

I think we can all agree that a bricklayer shouldn't change horses in midstream while baking a cake.

 

[Fatcat08]

I think we can all agree that a bricklayer shouldn't change horses in midstream while baking a cake.

Ironmonger is billy puller?

 

[Skoob]

Ironmonger is billy puller?

Well, you're half right.

Just kidding.

 

[Ironmonger]

Well, you're half right.

Just kidding.

How dare you call me Billy!

 

[Roylion]

As for Leppa stemming the flow of players leaving, aside from the GH5, there has still been too many for my liking, including, Patfull, Crisp, Aish, Redden and Leuenberger; all players that one could argue were more valuable than the GH5.

Overall I have to disagree. We've managed to replace most of those players

Patful --> Christenson. (Patful was a loss from our defence certainly, but he only had a couple of years left and he wanted to go to Sydney if it was possible to trade him. We got what I thought was a good deal.)
Crisp --> Beams (would do that again every day of the week)
Aish ---> Bastinac (Aish will be a very good player but he was adequately replaced by an experienced player in the right age bracket and with over 100 games experience. Barring injury Bastinac will be a terrific acquisition for the Club)
Redden --> Bell (like for like)
Leuenberger (would have stayed if he had been guaranteed the No. 1 ruck spot, but Martin is the preference and rightly so in my opinion).

 

[Skoob]

This is a bit shit.

AFL 2016: League pushed to restrict payout terms for Lions, Giants coaches
The AFL put pressure on Brisbane Lions and Greater Western Sydney to reduce the payout terms for coaches Justin Leppitsch and Leon Cameron when the pair were recently re-contracted by their clubs.

Brisbane, who spent some time in backroom negotiations with the AFL before recently announcing Leppitsch would coach the Lions until the end of 2017, told the AFL that a minimised payout for their coach would be inappropriate. The suggestion was that Leppitsch only receive a three-to-six-month payout should he be dismissed early.

The Lions' misgivings were shared by Leppitsch's manager Craig Kelly, who also represents Cameron and Alan Richardson.

Kelly told the AFL that Leppitsch had taken over the club at a time of extensive rebuilding and his deal should reflect that. He refused payout terms of between three and six months.

I get that we are heavily funded by the AFL and that they'd want to avoid further cost blow outs, but just how much influence do they think they should have on the running of clubs? This is too far, IMO and had they stuck to their guns, we could now be coachless.

 

[Ironmonger]

This is a bit shit.


I get that we are heavily funded by the AFL and that they'd want to avoid further cost blow outs, but just how much influence do they think they should have on the running of clubs? This is too far, IMO and had they stuck to their guns, we could now be coachless.

Agreed.

Whatever the terms of the contract, I doubt there's enough risk to justify the AFL getting involved.

That aside, I had hoped that we would have get-out clauses that would give us a fair bit of latitude, but from the article it seems that's not the case. Obviously most other posters will be happier about that than I am.

 

[Skoob]

Agreed.

Whatever the terms of the contract, I doubt there's enough risk to justify the AFL getting involved.

That aside, I had hoped that we would have get-out clauses that would give us a fair bit of latitude, but from the article it seems that's not the case. Obviously most other posters will be happier about that than I am.

We don't really know the terms and clauses of the contract though. What's reported is that we can't just sack him and pay less than 6 months of the remainder.
Assuming a coach would be sacked by October, that would leave at least 12 months of a contract. 6 months or more would seem fair.

This has the potential to affect future contracts and the attractiveness of the club to future CEOs and coaches.

 

[Tom14]

What's concerning is the precedent set by this - if the AFL begins to interfere with staffing decisions we will fall further behind. Particularly with respect to hiring extra coaches (something we have only recently started to catch up with other teams). Leppa's contract, whatever it is, is the least of our issues if this is the start of a trend.

 

[luthor]

What f******* hypocracy by the AFL.

 

[ZoBlitz]

Hey, they already appointed our chairman...

 

[Ironmonger]

We don't really know the terms and clauses of the contract though. What's reported is that we can't just sack him and pay less than 6 months of the remainder.
Assuming a coach would be sacked by October, that would leave at least 12 months of a contract. 6 months or more would seem fair.

This has the potential to affect future contracts and the attractiveness of the club to future CEOs and coaches.

I read the article as saying that Leppitsch refused a 6 months payout clause. They might have settled on somewhere between that and the full balance, but they may also have agreed to pay out the full balance.

It would also be possible to make a payout conditional on certain indicators being reached, which is probably the approach I would have supported. The article - which admittedly is not conclusive - doesn't suggest that's what happened.

I expect that for the board it's simply that they don't think it'll be an issue; that Leppitsch will coach this year and next year at the least.

 

[Skoob]

I read the article as saying that Leppitsch refused a 6 months payout clause. They might have settled on somewhere between that and the full balance, but they may also have agreed to pay out the full balance.

It would also be possible to make a payout conditional on certain indicators being reached, which is probably the approach I would have supported. The article - which admittedly is not conclusive - doesn't suggest that's what happened.

I expect that for the board it's simply that they don't think it'll be an issue; that Leppitsch will coach this year and next year at the least.

Yep, rejected a 3-6 month payout. Could have accepted 7, who knows. I take it from the tone of his manager's comments, that 3-6 months is below the norm, and as such unreasonable. I don't know what the norm is, but imagine it is somewhere between 6 & 12 and our coach should be entitled to whatever the industry standard is (even if that includes common clauses).

 

[Caiphus]

Wasn't it reported as a 12m rolling contract? That would mean it is automatically a 12 month payout.

 

[Skoob]

Wasn't it reported as a 12m rolling contract? That would mean it is automatically a 12 month payout.

I think payout can still be negotiated. It would be a rolling fixed term contract. If it were a straight fixed term contract, the employee has a greater claim to the balance of the contract. By it being a rolling contract, it doesn't have to be re-negotiated each year and the most a payout will be is 12 months.

In this case, I think the extension (2017) may be either fixed on top of the current, or the commencement of the rolling contract. The club may have the option to sack him at any time after this season but would have to pay out a portion or all of next year. If on a fixed term for next year, they would more likely have to pay out the full term.




I think.

 

[3KZ is Football]

I think we can all agree that a bricklayer shouldn't change horses in midstream while baking a cake.

I agree. That would open Pandora's Floodgates of Worms and we need that like a fish needs a feminist.