Recommitted Michael Hurley?

[Milanista28]

Potentially the biggest talking point this off season, Club confident he will resign people close to him confident he will as well but to this date he hasn't committed to the last year on his contract(2017) or signed an extension.

If he were to leave it will be via trade no doubts, Who'd be the main parties interested and what would he cost?

Praying he stays big time would kill me losing him but he deserves his own thread on this board.

 

[M Malice]

i would give up our first pick for him, then you would have 2 top 3-4 picks.

is the exact type of player we need ie. experienced key position defender to take merretts spot. 5 years 750-800K per year.

 

[Great8]

Heading OS in the next week or so for awhile so think this will drag on for sometime. As much as the club and people close to the club say he is every chance of staying you would think the longer this drags on the less chance he is of staying.
Would require a top 10 pick for sure or a decent player plus pick trade.
Fingers crossed he stays however

 

[Mego Red]

Wouldn't he leave as a free agent?

He either wants to leave a club that used unknown drugs in him (so probably doesn't worry too much what value a club gets for him) or he wants to stay with his mates.

 

[Great8]

Wouldn't he leave as a free agent?

He either wants to leave a club that used unknown drugs in him (so probably doesn't worry too much what value a club gets for him) or he wants to stay with his mates.

Wouldn't think it would get that far, a trade would be done IMO

 

[carnthedons]

He's still got a year on his contract boys, in theory he doesn't have to announce anything.

 

[fargothegreat]

Wouldn't have to give anything. Essendon provided an unsafe work environment due to Hirds drug regime.

This allows him to break his contract and leave as a DFA.

 

[adammania9]

I've yet to see a reliable source that states that suspended Bombers may leave as DFAs and I don't reckon the AFL has that in their mind. I reckon they will be traded if they want.

He's only just turned 26 and is one of the best KPDs in the league - no bragain if on the trade table. 1st rounder + 2nd rounder, or 1st rounder + decent Best 22 player I reckon.

The club I'm scared of getting him is Sydney, they'll want to sort something out I reckon, however I think he'll stay at Essendon and help the rebuild.

 

[Suma Magic]

Think it would be a trade but that can't be guaranteed with the DFA option present.

I think he will stay.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Wouldn't have to give anything. Essendon provided an unsafe work environment due to Hirds drug regime.

This allows him to break his contract and leave as a DFA.

ah no...

This is just a complete misunderstanding of how it would work. The AFL have already said that for the contract to be voided it would require a hearing in a convened Grievance Tribunal, and more pertinently EFC have already stated that if a player wants to leave, they will not stand in their way of a trade.

The simple fact of the matter is any Grievance Tribunal that was set up would hear that there are no impediments on a player leaving to the club of his choice, as EFC are willing to trade him, and that would be that, case closed.

So the whole thing is bollocks, basically, spouted by ignorant BigFooty posters and talkback callers, many of whom are hoping to get a quality freebie on their list.

 

[Falcon27]

ah no...

This is just a complete misunderstanding of how it would work. The AFL have already said that for the contract to be voided it would require a hearing in a convened Grievance Tribunal, and more pertinently EFC have already stated that if a player wants to leave, they will not stand in their way of a trade.

The simple fact of the matter is any Grievance Tribunal that was set up would hear that there are no impediments on a player leaving to the club of his choice, as EFC are willing to trade him, and that would be that, case closed.

So the whole thing is bollocks, basically, spouted by ignorant BigFooty posters and talkback callers, many of whom are hoping to get a quality freebie on their list.

Yeah, and it seems to be more often then not Tiges supporters spruiking it!!!!

 

[dlanod]

ah no...

This is just a complete misunderstanding of how it would work. The AFL have already said that for the contract to be voided it would require a hearing in a convened Grievance Tribunal, and more pertinently EFC have already stated that if a player wants to leave, they will not stand in their way of a trade.

Agreed.

The simple fact of the matter is any Grievance Tribunal that was set up would hear that there are no impediments on a player leaving to the club of his choice, as EFC are willing to trade him, and that would be that, case closed.

Nope. Requiring a trade could easily be considered an impediment on a player leaving the club to a club of his choice, unless Essendon is willing to accept whatever the other club offers, e.g. pick 76. I don't see Essendon agreeing to that.

So the whole thing is bollocks, basically, spouted by ignorant BigFooty posters and talkback callers, many of whom are hoping to get a quality freebie on their list.

Not unless you consider pick 76 an acceptable trade.

Having said that I would be shocked if Hurley a) leaves, and b) isn't traded for at least, say, 80 cents on the dollar, i.e. Ryder or Bennell.

 

[Suma Magic]

The DFA option would only be explored if a trade couldn't be done (after the trade period ended). So it would have been an impediment by definition.

Pretty sure a trade would be done though, as both teams would be aware of the DFA situation.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Agreed.



Nope. Requiring a trade could easily be considered an impediment on a player leaving the club to a club of his choice, unless Essendon is willing to accept whatever the other club offers, e.g. pick 76. I don't see Essendon agreeing to that.



Not unless you consider pick 76 an acceptable trade.

Having said that I would be shocked if Hurley a) leaves, and b) isn't traded for at least, say, 80 cents on the dollar, i.e. Ryder or Bennell.

no it goes both ways though. Why would a tribunal uphold a grievance simply because a club wanted to bid unders? That's the point I'm making. A mechanism exists and there is no impediment to it being used. Therefore in the hypothetical scenario, Hurley gets to the club of his choice, ergo there is no grievance.

What it does mean is Essendon can't afford to play hardball. They would be obliged to accept an offer that was subjectively fair, much like the Ryder trade. But in reality that's already explicit in the declaration that they won't stand in the way of a player leaving should they choose to.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

The DFA option would only be explored if a trade couldn't be done (after the trade period ended). So it would have been an impediment by definition.

Pretty sure a trade would be done though, as both teams would be aware of the DFA situation.

that may well be the case, but it's just as pertinent to the view on BF that a club can hold it dangling over the trade negotiations like the sword of Damocles.
It beggars belief in that case that a tribunal would uphold a grievance to release him from his contract so that he can go to Richmond, when a pathway already existed but was turned down by Richmond, for example.

Bodies like courts and tribunals don't like to overturn established systems unless they have to, or have a very good reason to. As you've pointed out, in the real world if Hurley wants to go to another club then that club will do a deal that is within an acceptable margin of subjective fairness and supporters should probably stop deluding themselves otherwise

 

[Suma Magic]

that may well be the case, but it's just as pertinent to the view on BF that a club can hold it dangling over the trade negotiations like the sword of Damocles.
It beggars belief in that case that a tribunal would uphold a grievance to release him from his contract so that he can go to Richmond, when a pathway already existed but was turned down by Richmond, for example.

Bodies like courts and tribunals don't like to overturn established systems unless they have to, or have a very good reason to. As you've pointed out, in the real world if Hurley wants to go to another club then that club will do a deal that is within an acceptable margin of subjective fairness and supporters should probably stop deluding themselves otherwise

If it did go to a stalemate and the Tigers offered pick 20 (or something considered definite unders) and no trade was done, what would the tribunal do? Would Hurley still be allowed to cancel his contract because of the void?

I'm not really disagreeing with you here, think we're on a similar page. Just think it could be hard for the tribunal to deny him the request to void the contract in that situation.

 

[The 747]

If it did go to a stalemate and the Tigers offered pick 20 (or something considered definite unders) and no trade was done, what would the tribunal do? Would Hurley still be allowed to cancel his contract because of the void?

I'm not really disagreeing with you here, think we're on a similar page. Just think it could be hard for the tribunal to deny him the request to void the contract in that situation.

Can't see how such a situation would eventuate; what sort of club says "we want you" and then makes an offer which is a joke? Hurley would have to want to hurt Essendon to go along with that. And the club risks not getting an AA defender because it tried to be sly about it.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Heading OS in the next week or so for awhile so think this will drag on for sometime. As much as the club and people close to the club say he is every chance of staying you would think the longer this drags on the less chance he is of staying.
Would require a top 10 pick for sure or a decent player plus pick trade.
Fingers crossed he stays however

He does have a contract for next year so it's not like he's in a hurry could very well be thinking that he can get a better contract next year when he's eligible for FA status.

 

[marky53]

Can't see how such a situation would eventuate; what sort of club says "we want you" and then makes an offer which is a joke? Hurley would have to want to hurt Essendon to go along with that. And the club risks not getting an AA defender because it tried to be sly about it.

St. Kilda

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

If he goes he's easily worth a 1st round pick+plus a decent player.

AA full back that can swing forward and kick goals these type of players don't grown on trees.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If it did go to a stalemate and the Tigers offered pick 20 (or something considered definite unders) and no trade was done, what would the tribunal do? Would Hurley still be allowed to cancel his contract because of the void?

I'm not really disagreeing with you here, think we're on a similar page. Just think it could be hard for the tribunal to deny him the request to void the contract in that situation.

we are on the same page. As I said before, EFC have said they will trade a player if he wants to go. I imagine in that scenario EFC would suck it up and move on, as a goodwill gesture to Hurley. But I don't imagine playing a ransom game would be a great look, for the club. I don't think parties like the AFL would look to kindly on it, or even Hurley himself.

For me, the key thing is simply: certainty. A club could conceivably take a risk and play hardball and try and go the the tribunal, but that creates uncertainty, for them, for Hurley, for everyone. If it is indeed held after the trade period it doesn't leave a lot of options if it doesn't go to plan, and nobody would want that. Far better, and pragmatic, to do what you gotta do. You won't be getting bent over yourself either. A deal would get done, if it needed to.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Can't see how such a situation would eventuate; what sort of club says "we want you" and then makes an offer which is a joke? Hurley would have to want to hurt Essendon to go along with that. And the club risks not getting an AA defender because it tried to be sly about it.

exactly this. It would be bizarre for a club to commit to a player but then refuse to do what they reasonably need to do to secure him. Not only does it put Hurley in the position of ****ing his old team it also puts him in a window of extreme uncertainty for a long time, conceivably up to the PSD and the lottery of whoever has top position there

 

[dlanod]

For me, the key thing is simply: certainty. A club could conceivably take a risk and play hardball and try and go the the tribunal, but that creates uncertainty, for them, for Hurley, for everyone. If it is indeed held after the trade period it doesn't leave a lot of options if it doesn't go to plan, and nobody would want that. Far better, and pragmatic, to do what you gotta do. You won't be getting bent over yourself either. A deal would get done, if it needed to.

That's why I think if Hurley wants out, it'll be by trade even if it's technically unders.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

exactly this. It would be bizarre for a club to commit to a player but then refuse to do what they reasonably need to do to secure him. Not only does it put Hurley in the position of ******* his old team it also puts him in a window of extreme uncertainty for a long time, conceivably up to the PSD and the lottery of whoever has top position there

If he were to go wouldn't it be a better for the club he goes as a FA next year? we will get a band one compo pick with the amount of money clubs will throw at him.

 

[Great8]

If he were to go wouldn't it be a better for the club he goes as a FA next year? we will get a band one compo pick with the amount of money clubs will throw at him.

Has been talks of compo picks being abolished in the future