Lion bail-out package

[Old Spice]

According to the Hun:

THE estimated $500,000 Brisbane will save by paying out Brendan Fevola should ensure the club has the cash to keep in-demand ruckman Mitch Clark.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...h-to-mitch-clark/story-e6frf9jf-1226009733918

This is really disgraceful stuff in my opinion. While every other team is being raided by GWS for talent in bidding wars, Brisbane's stupidity is being rewarded. Not only are they getting cap relief, that cap relief is going to be used to try and help secure Mitch Clark and Daniel Rich.

Everyone else has anticipated the franchise and organised their recruiting and TPP accordingly. Why is Brisbane being thrown a bone?

What really irks me is that this will have flow on effects for other clubs in the sense that if Brisbane are given back some of the war chest to retain GWS targets, GWS are more likely to poach players from other clubs, including ours.

The above article states Gubby is interested in Clark and they might just have nabbed him - reducing the amount GWS would have for further raids. Not happy Jan.

 

[Thommo 42]

my view is that I'm comfortable with his salary being spread over the 2 years, as long as his spot on the senior list in 2012 is also left vacant.

If they are allowed to replace him on the list next year, they shouldn't be allowed to account for him in the cap.

 

[Jelly Bean]

According to the Hun:



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...h-to-mitch-clark/story-e6frf9jf-1226009733918

This is really disgraceful stuff in my opinion. While every other team is being raided by GWS for talent in bidding wars, Brisbane's stupidity is being rewarded. Not only are they getting cap relief, that cap relief is going to be used to try and help secure Mitch Clark and Daniel Rich.

Everyone else has anticipated the franchise and organised their recruiting and TPP accordingly. Why is Brisbane being thrown a bone?

What really irks me is that this will have flow on effects for other clubs in the sense that if Brisbane are given back some of the war chest to retain GWS targets, GWS are more likely to poach players from other clubs, including ours.

The above article states Gubby is interested in Clark and they might just have nabbed him - reducing the amount GWS would have for further raids. Not happy Jan.

Yes, it is disappointing.

 

[Old Spice]

my view is that I'm comfortable with his salary being spread over the 2 years, as long as his spot on the senior list in 2012 is also left vacant.

If they are allowed to replace him on the list next year, they shouldn't be allowed to account for him in the cap.

It should be left at what the original arrangement was. I mean, they made it so tough t***ies.

Caveat emptor, and no one can say they didn't know what they were buying, but bought it anyway.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The article doesnt make any sense.

The Lions have to carry the full cost of Fev's contract in their salary cap over the next two years.

The only way they'd be able to make room in their cap for next year ,is if they had an extra 500k cap room spare this year to allow them to pay Fevola out in full this season.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

my view is that I'm comfortable with his salary being spread over the 2 years, as long as his spot on the senior list in 2012 is also left vacant.

If they are allowed to replace him on the list next year, they shouldn't be allowed to account for him in the cap.

If they carry the salary in their cap (which they have to) , they wont be able to replace him with anybody above base wage.

 

[HFF]

Whilst it is a disgrace to reward their incompetence, it sitll may not be enough to save one of Clark or Rich or even both- particularly if Crazy Vossy has a poor year which to me, looks imminent.

 

[Old Spice]

The AFL are giving them a break on their salary cap arrangements, according to this article.

THE AFL has confirmed it will give the Brisbane Lions salary cap relief following the decision to sack troubled forward Brendan Fevola.

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson confirmed this afternoon the Lions could spread the $1.9 million payout over two years.

Fevola will receive the money up front, but the ruling meant the Lions would not exceed this year’s salary cap, so could therefore sack the troubled star.

 

[mattys123]

As I said yesterday, the Lions aren't really at "fault" here, as the AFL set the dangerous precedent last year when they allowed StKilda to sack Andrew Lovett and spread his payout over 2 seasons also.

The AFL made a mistake last year, simply put, if you sign a contract with a player, BAD LUCK, that contract sticks unless something extraordinary occurs (e.g. player dies, has cancer).

Therefore I'm not shocked by this.

The AFL have set a bad precedent, and all Brisbane did was walk into AFL house with the Lovett case as the example and said "Hey, what about us".

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I'm not sure how spreading the payout over two years if giving Brisbane (or StKilda) any advantage.

It simply means they are taking the salary cap hit exactly the same way if the players were still on the list, ie as per the contract.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

The AFL are giving them a break on their salary cap arrangements, according to this article.

They're not really giving them a break - They're just counting the payment over both years as was contractually obligated, rather than making it count all for this year, despite them making the payment all at once.

If they counted the whole payment against this year's salary cap, it would be giving them a break on the cap next year, as they'd be about $1m under where they should be.

Basically, the salary cap number is what gets written on the original contract when signed. No matter if different arrangements are made in terms of payment, the amount that gets counted against the salary cap is what was written on the contract lodged to the AFL.

 

[mdc]

The AFL are giving them a break on their salary cap arrangements, according to this article.

Come on now, that's not "cap relief". In just about every professional sport with a cap, any contract termination is always carried on the cap in the way established by the contract...not in one lump sum hit. That's all the AFL is saying.

From what I've seen, the indignation about the Fevola/AFL thing is completely unwarranted. I'm no fan of AFL HQ, but in this case they've acted perfectly reasonably. If later on they decided to grant the lions a waiver of certain Fev-related salary cap obligations, I'll change my tune.

 

[daics_35]

What a joke the AFL is, this just prooves the salary cap is nothing these days.

 

[beez]

There's nothing sinister going on, The Hun has just worded the article(s) re the salary cap badly.

TT, VV and mdc are all on the money.

 

[Thommo 42]

I believe that they are not enforcing the $1.9m on them, unless that is what Fev gets. If he gets a payout of $1m as mooted today by the Lions, thats all that will count.

If so, that is patently unfair.

 

[Old Spice]

I understand that in order to give a lump sum payout to Fev, they take the hit all at once yet have sought to keep it in effect to two years, but it would seem that the figures have become somewhat rubbery.

It looks as though they can place most in this years cap to free up space for next year and contract negotiations with other young Lions.

The impasse over Fevola had meant the Lions could not progress on new deals for out-of-contract trio Clark, Daniel Rich and Matthew Leuenberger.

 

[mdc]

I believe that they are not enforcing the $1.9m on them, unless that is what Fev gets. If he gets a payout of $1m as mooted today by the Lions, thats all that will count.

If so, that is patently unfair.

From what I understand, that's exactly how it works in every other major sport.

The only way they'll get away with paying less than 1.9m is if Fevola has breached contract. If he's breached contract then there's no obligation for them to pay the contract.

It looks as though they can place most in this years cap to free up space for next year and contract negotiations with other young Lions.

No player would reject the option of getting more money upfront, so they could always have renegotiated the Fevola contract in this fashion anyway.

If the AFL gave a team the option of deferring payments, then I'd have a problem.

 

[PieBeast]

I believe that they are not enforcing the $1.9m on them, unless that is what Fev gets. If he gets a payout of $1m as mooted today by the Lions, thats all that will count.

If so, that is patently unfair.

Fairly sure its exactly whats happening here, Brions first offer to Fev is 1 mil.

Doubt Fev's management will settle for that but it looks like the final payout figure will be considerably smaller than 1.9 mil that he's entitled to, hence the talk of more space in salary cap.

 

[Old Spice]

From what I understand, that's exactly how it works in every other major sport.

The only way they'll get away with paying less than 1.9m is if Fevola has breached contract. If he's breached contract then there's no obligation for them to pay the contract.

That's just tough shit though. That's an A B contract situation with Lions and Fev, but they should still have to count the full amount they signed for with Fev in TPP.

 

[mdc]

That's just tough shit though. That's an A B contract situation with Lions and Fev, but they should still have to count the full amount they signed for with Fev in TPP.

That's nonsense. TPP is total player payments, not total promised player payments. If they don't pay him, there's not a single reason for it to count towards the TPP.

 

[Ed D]

I'm not sure why Fev would settle for half his pay when he got sacked and put out of a job. It's going to be interesting.

 

[Old Spice]

That's nonsense. TPP is total player payments, not total promised player payments. If they don't pay him, there's not a single reason for it to count towards the TPP.

On that reasoning, a team can give the flick to a player who has behavioural issues and free up some cash, but if a club is saddled with an expensive player whose body breaks down, that is tough luck for that club.

I also don't think it's appropriate for the AFL to be offering incentives for potential cases of unfair dismissal / or workplace pay-outs. If Brisbane can open up the space between the 1.9 mill and whatever they end up paying him, surely that puts a premium on Brisbane trying to absolutely screw him.

 

[mdc]

On that reasoning, a team can give the flick to a player who has behavioural issues and free up some cash, but if a club is saddled with an expensive player whose body breaks down, that is tough luck for that club.

At some point "behavioral issues" turns into breach of contract...and then yes, they can give that player the flick. I don't know whether this is the case here, but it's obviously what the Lions/AFL are claiming. As for the second scenario, if a player retires due to their body breaking down, then that doesn't count on the TPP either afaik.

I also don't think it's appropriate for the AFL to be bankrolling potential cases of unfair dismissal / or workplace contracts. If Brisbane can open up the space between the 1.9 mill and whatever they end up paying him, surely that puts a premium on Brisbane trying to absolutely screw him.

Well, technically if there's been a contract breach they owe him nothing. However, as I'm sure you're aware, for pragmatic purposes the team usually pays out about 50-65% of the money owed to avoid being taken to court, where the legal fees will be astronomical.

 

[smiddaz123]

If the AFL didn't allow this Fevola would just stay on the books and not play, and probably not train. This effectively keeps the same financial scenario as Fevola staying, but allowing him to leave the club and sort his life out. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

No issue imo, a perfectly reasonable scenario.

 

[Pie eyed]

If the AFL didn't allow this Fevola would just stay on the books and not play, and probably not train. This effectively keeps the same financial scenario as Fevola staying, but allowing him to leave the club and sort his life out. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

No issue imo, a perfectly reasonable scenario.

Agree.