Opinion Matt Priddis discussion.

[Eagleboy68]

Things are changing, even the FB brigade are seeing that Priddis needs to retire.

Well well well.

So is are any priddis going to ask the question after seeing that?

You know. The "who is there to replace him" question

Hahah

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

So is are any priddis going to ask the question after seeing that?

The only question I've got after seeing that is ... huh?

 

[Eagleboy68]

The only question I've got after seeing that is ... huh?

Lol bit drunk...

 

[Eaglemaniac]

At this point it's just blatantly obvious to everyone (well nearly) that our midfield works better without Priddis in it.

Except our club and match committee. Watch him come straight back in as soon as he's fit.

 

[Ok Boomer]

Matthew Lloyd suggested on the AFL site show that Priddis should be kept out, making the same arguments that many have made here.

 

[Winky]

to be fair his one strength is his ability to handball in traffic

Sometimes!

 

[Yippy Yi Yeo]

It's becoming more and more painfully obvious by the week how much better off we are without Priddis. I genuinely believe we are a chance for top 4 and even possibly top 2 if we leave Priddis out of the side for the rest of the year and get a few others back from injury/have a good run with injuries. The club have to do what's right for the team, the fans and Priddis. His image in the eyes of the fans is just diminishing each week, just pull the plug on him now and pay him out for next years contract, what a f***ing blunder that was resigning him. Let's hope he's on no more than 250k.

 

[domo]

It's becoming more and more painfully obvious by the week how much better off we are without Priddis. I genuinely believe we are a chance for top 4 and even possibly top 2 if we leave Priddis out of the side for the rest of the year and get a few others back from injury/have a good run with injuries. The club have to do what's right for the team, the fans and Priddis. His image in the eyes of the fans is just diminishing each week, just pull the plug on him now and pay him out for next years contract, what a f***ing blunder that was resigning him. Let's hope he's on no more than 250k.

I wonder if it was a case of Priddis being told at round 6-7 or early this year, he was gonna be dropped permanently? Hearing this and maybe having been promised another year (2 years total) at the end of last season, he's relied on that promise. ("well youse said I could have another year?!?"). So his management and the club then 'settled' by offering him that extra year - knowing full well the club would reneg and pay him out. A golden handshake for the golden locks of sorts?

 

[Yippy Yi Yeo]

I wonder if it was a case of Priddis being told at round 6-7 or early this year, he was gonna be dropped permanently? Hearing this and maybe having been promised another year (2 years total) at the end of last season, he's relied on that promise. ("well youse said I could have another year?!?"). So his management and the club then 'settled' by offering him that extra year - knowing full well the club would reneg and pay him out. A golden handshake for the golden locks of sorts?

We can only hope

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I wonder if it was a case of Priddis being told at round 6-7 or early this year, he was gonna be dropped permanently? Hearing this and maybe having been promised another year (2 years total) at the end of last season, he's relied on that promise. ("well youse said I could have another year?!?"). So his management and the club then 'settled' by offering him that extra year - knowing full well the club would reneg and pay him out. A golden handshake for the golden locks of sorts?

Or he had an automatic trigger clause that triggered automatically, and there actually wasn't anything he or his management needed to go settle with the club?

Which one sounds more plausible?

 

[Marlin01]

He waddled his way to activating the trigger Claus.

 

[domo]

Or he had an automatic trigger clause that triggered automatically, and there actually wasn't anything he or his management needed to go settle with the club?

Which one sounds more plausible?

I agree, but whats the trigger?? Just a point in time? ie. 12 rounds into the season or whatever it was. He did his last 1 year only extension before last season started (for this year). Wouldn't that be likely what they would have been negotiating before this season started too? But it was held off - along with Lecras + Wellingham deals - who still are yet to sign/deal. Whereas Priddis has. Sheed Shuey Nelson get theirs. Mitchell plays on too - they are told they are required.

Or, it is a mutual save face spin job deal for both parties. He knows he can retire gracefully "on his terms" with all that spin at the end of this season. After knowing and being told he won't get a game, particularly if Mitchell is playing next year (hope so).
So both he and the club come out looking "nice guys".
ie.. the club" "yeah we love him wanted him to play on" - gave him a deal.
Priddis "yeah the club loves me and wants me... I love the club.. but shit I just can't do it anymore.. sorry everyone"

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I agree, but whats the trigger?? Just a point in time? ie. 12 rounds into the season or whatever it was. He did his last 1 year only extension before last season started (for this year). Wouldn't that be likely what they would have been negotiating before this season started too? But it was held off - along with Lecras + Wellingham deals - who still are yet to sign/deal. Whereas Priddis has. Sheed Shuey Nelson get theirs. Mitchell plays on too - they are told they are required.

Or, it is a mutual save face spin job deal for both parties. He knows he can retire gracefully "on his terms" with all that spin at the end of this season. After knowing and being told he won't get a game, particularly if Mitchell is playing next year (hope so).
So both he and the club come out looking "nice guys".
ie.. the club" "yeah we love him wanted him to play on" - gave him a deal.
Priddis "yeah the club loves me and wants me... I love the club.. but shit I just can't do it anymore.. sorry everyone"

The trigger would have been playing x number of games in 2017. Probably 10 or 11.

Without any automatic trigger clause I don't see why the club would have signed him up mid-year. Particularly if they intended to just run him out the door and pay him out at the end of this season. Giving him a contract for 2018 just makes it harder to boot him, not easier.

 

[domo]

The trigger would have been playing x number of games in 2017. Probably 10 or 11.

Without any automatic trigger clause I don't see why the club would have signed him up mid-year. Particularly if they intended to just run him out the door and pay him out at the end of this season. Giving him a contract for 2018 just makes it harder to boot him, not easier.

do they really have stuff like "games played" as triggers for new contracts??? Are they more like get out clauses that protect clubs - who want to get out of contracts rather than for players in the vice versa? (I wouldn't know?)

If it was a bit of a Mexican stand off between club + Priddis. AND Mitchell too. Priddis banks an extra year of $$ in the worst case scenario for him
(if their relationship turned to shit).
ie. the club shafts Priddis after waiting on Mitchell to decide. eg. Mitchell decides at end of this year and plays on next year.
If he retires 'gracefully' with the contract for next year, he doesn't get the $ right? Or does he?
So the deal covers all scenarios? (including happy joy spin ones i mentioned).

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

do they really have stuff like "games played" as triggers for new contracts??? Are they more like get out clauses that protect clubs - who want to get out of contracts rather than for players in the vice versa? (I wouldn't know?)

They do. E.g. Dale Thomas had one in his contract that got a bit of publicity when there was talk that it was being jeopardised by Carlton playing him in the reserves. In the end Daisy agreed to waive it: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/da...t/news-story/b07914430842b334ee4fb2f4bfd28eff

If it was a bit of a Mexican stand off between club + Priddis. AND Mitchell too. Priddis banks an extra year of $$ in the worst case scenario for him
(if their relationship turned to shit).
ie. the club shafts Priddis after waiting on Mitchell to decide. eg. Mitchell decides at end of this year and plays on next year.
If he retires 'gracefully' with the contract for next year, he doesn't get the $ right? Or does he?
So the deal covers all scenarios? (including happy joy spin ones i mentioned).

If there was no trigger clause, what benefit would the club get from signing up a player mid-year that they didn't want/intend to keep on the list? They would have been perfectly able to leave Priddis' contractual situation unchanged until the end of the season, then gently leaned him towards retiring at that point. There's no benefit in signing him up for 2018 only to retire him and pay him out, with the payout going into the salary cap.

Your version of events is nonsensical. As I read it it involves a conversation like this:
Priddis: I want to play on in 2018, you said I could. Even though it's not in my contract.
Club: OK, well we'll give you a contract for 2018 then. But we might get you to retire gracefully at the end of this year, then pay you out.

Why wouldn't the club just say instead: "Look we'll make that call at the end of the year. We can't promise anything."?

 

[domo]

They do. E.g. Dale Thomas had one in his contract that got a bit of publicity when there was talk that it was being jeopardised by Carlton playing him in the reserves. In the end Daisy agreed to waive it: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/da...t/news-story/b07914430842b334ee4fb2f4bfd28eff



If there was no trigger clause, what benefit would the club get from signing up a player mid-year that they didn't want/intend to keep on the list? They would have been perfectly able to leave Priddis' contractual situation unchanged until the end of the season, then gently leaned him towards retiring at that point. There's no benefit in signing him up for 2018 only to retire him and pay him out, with the payout going into the salary cap.

Your version of events is nonsensical. As I read it it involves a conversation like this:
Priddis: I want to play on in 2018, you said I could. Even though it's not in my contract.
Club: OK, well we'll give you a contract for 2018 then. But we might get you to retire gracefully at the end of this year, then pay you out.

Why wouldn't the club just say instead: "Look we'll make that call at the end of the year. We can't promise anything."?

okay I see, thanks.
But is he not a veteran, and his salary not count to the cap? under that rule?
Is it Priddis 'enforcing' the contract based on the games played trigger? eg.
PRIDDIS:
"I got the games in, you have to give me the contract" ..

But if the club don't want him to play - or are giving him the we'll see at the end of the year/ telling him yeah you got the contract like the clause said - but we're firing you anyway.

PRIDDIS: "well go on then fire me" at the end of this year. He gets his money leaves.
Or stays on the list. plays at east perth..

Or, he just retires end of this year with the deal. He doesn't get the cash? - contract is void? Everyone looks lovely friends. Grannies don't choke etc.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

okay I see, thanks.
But is he not a veteran, and his salary not count to the cap? under that rule?
Is it Priddis 'enforcing' the contract based on the games played trigger? eg.
PRIDDIS:
"I got the games in, you have to give me the contract" ..

But if the club don't want him to play - or are giving him the we'll see at the end of the year/ telling him yeah you got the contract like the clause said - but we're firing you anyway.

PRIDDIS: "well go on then fire me" at the end of this year. He gets his money leaves.
Or stays on the list. plays at east perth..

Or, he just retires end of this year with the deal. He doesn't get the cash? - contract is void? Everyone looks lovely friends. Grannies don't choke etc.

Veterans get $100,000 of their salary excluded from the cap these days, I think.

If there's a "games played" trigger clauses, and he plays the number of games, then it triggers automatically and the contract rolls over. It's not a matter of him enforcing it.

You seem to have this idea that Priddis is there beating the club's door down demanding money and a contract, and the club capitulating to him despite it not being in their best interests. I just don't see why that would be happening.

 

[jdisc]

I never got the sense that Priddis was a money-obsessed player

 

[new breed]

Fraser McInnes had a trigger clause in his contract a few years ago whereby by playing ten games in any season automatically gave him another season which turned out to be in 2016 ...now in 2017 he was placed on the rookie list .

Fraser sounds like he is going pretty well at the moment .

 

[Ok Boomer]

Fraser isn't 32 years old.

The only possible out for Priddis and his lack of performance this year that isn't age related is that his back injury and surgery at the end of last year has restricted him a lot more than what we realise, and that he and the club believe that this may improve.

 

[domo]

Veterans get $100,000 of their salary excluded from the cap these days, I think.

If there's a "games played" trigger clauses, and he plays the number of games, then it triggers automatically and the contract rolls over. It's not a matter of him enforcing it.

You seem to have this idea that Priddis is there beating the club's door down demanding money and a contract, and the club capitulating to him despite it not being in their best interests. I just don't see why that would be happening.

Ahuh, but the club could still get out of that contract and have to pay him out, right?

Nah I just think Priddis is probably acting in his best interest .. I would too. The criticism floating around and the reaction though has been "the club is mad to sign him" etc (which I agree). But really they are not signing him, they're just holding up some deal for the time being, and promoting + spinning it as something great. Which serves in everyone's we're all "nice guys, love each" interest. Which they prob do as well in reality, all parties.
But all that is driving all of us bonkers.. well the likes of me haha..

So, does Priddis end up retiring peacefully at the end of this year after all ie. keeps his end of some happy spin bargain.. but doesn't get paid (or they pay him anyway?). Which sux financially for Priddis.. but it all looks great.
Or
Does he play hardball only in that he insists he stay to get the money and/or because he thinks he still is awesome. but plays east perth or sits in the stands. Or bloody plays on!! (which is shit for us)
That's the intriguing bit to me..

 

[new breed]

Fraser isn't 32 years old.

The only possible out for Priddis and his lack of performance this year that isn't age related is that his back injury and surgery at the end of last year has restricted him a lot more than what we realise, and that he and the club believe that this may improve.

If there is a trigger in a contract that has been reached then its legally binding , doesn't mean they cant pay him out or include him at EP in a development role though .

 

[DickDunn]

The West's footy podcast today essentially agrees Priddis is no longer best 22

https://omny.fm/shows/the-game-afl-podcast-with-duff-and-quarters/the-wash-up-where-does-priddis-sit

 

[Ok Boomer]

If there is a trigger in a contract that has been reached then its legally binding , doesn't mean they cant pay him out or include him at EP in a development role though .

Get that about the contract. Hopefully that isn't a barrier for him being dropped on performance though, and I think that is the biggest concern for many of us over the deal. If he wants to run around for EP like Scott Thompson is doing in the Crows ressies this year then good on him I suppose.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Nah I just think Priddis is probably acting in his best interest .. I would too. The criticism floating around and the reaction though has been "the club is mad to sign him" etc (which I agree). But really they are not signing him, they're just holding up some deal for the time being, and promoting + spinning it as something great. Which serves in everyone's we're all "nice guys, love each" interest. Which they prob do as well in reality, all parties.

Doesn't matter how much promotion and spin they put into it, there is no benefit (and a lot of detriment) in signing up a player for 2018 if they don't actually want him.

The club isn't nearly as interested as "looking like nice guys" as you might think. If you think the signing is solely because they're worried about a backlash from fans on Facebook then I'd invite you to check back through any of my interactions with them on Twitter. Or the comments on any of their "what do you think of our changes this week?" posts. They don't particularly care about what fans think about individual moves, because they don't have to. Even when we move to Burswood there'll still likely be a waiting list for members. They're not a North Melbourne who have to beg and plead for fans.

The fact that Priddis was signed up mid-year for 2018 suggests one of two things:
a) They think he's capable of contributing in 2018 and worth a spot; or
b) It was automatic and taken out of their hands.

Personally I hope it's the latter, as that makes more logical sense.

What makes even less, in fact zero, logical sense, is your scenario which is:
c) they don't think he's capable of contributing in 2018 but just gave him a contract anyway, because... it's a nice thing to do?