Recommitted Michael Hurley?

[Steve7920]

Please dont compare Billings to Bont.

Not comparing the 2, just mentioning the likelihood of trading that particular player.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

Connors is playing this superbly IMO.

As Xavier Campbell alluded to a couple of days ago, Ess have had more discussions with his management in the last 7 days and I was told last night they were led to believe that they are in the box seat to retain him.

Someone is being told porkies because I have no doubt the Dogs are also being told they are leading the race too.

A lot to play out. Connors will derive maxmimum $$$$.

I've said repeatedly that he's just as likely to stay. It's where his mates are, and it's the easier decision. If he does leave, it will go some way to showing how much impact the last few years has had on him. But the Dogs are in there fighting for him, as I'm sure Essendon are too. If he stayed I'd be happy, if he came to us I'd be happy, if he went anywhere else I'd be sad.

 

[Heppellicious]

I've said repeatedly that he's just as likely to stay. It's where his mates are, and it's the easier decision. If he does leave, it will go some way to showing how much impact the last few years has had on him. But the Dogs are in there fighting for him, as I'm sure Essendon are too. If he stayed I'd be happy, if he came to us I'd be happy, if he went anywhere else I'd be sad.

Thanks for sharing mate. Guess we will all know soon enough either way.

Just think Connors always maximizes this situations for his clients regardless of whether he stays or goes.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

Thanks for sharing mate. Guess we will all know soon enough either way.

Just think Connors always maximizes this situations for his clients regardless of whether he stays or goes.

And Connors isn't a massive rap for the Dons at the moment. Seems he's doing what he can to get players out, or make sure the Bombers pay overs to keep them. Seems a shame but I guess that's his job.

 

[Sam Guest]

2017 first rounder and christian salem + our 4th rounder this year for Hurley and your 3rd?

 

[Heppellicious]

And Connors isn't a massive rap for the Dons at the moment. Seems he's doing what he can to get players out, or make sure the Bombers pay overs to keep them. Seems a shame but I guess that's his job.

heard that about Connors

 

[Heppellicious]

And Connors isn't a massive rap for the Dons at the moment. Seems he's doing what he can to get players out, or make sure the Bombers pay overs to keep them. Seems a shame but I guess that's his job.

The only thing that kind of contradicts this is that Leunberger is managed by Connors and last year he selected Essendon ahead of a number of clubs.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Well said, but suppose we have to accept "they the supporters" have also been the innocent party in all this. Facing, losing your better players is hard at the best of times for some ... but nobody is really buying their bluff and bravado, their only hope it talking the players into staying by any means. Essendon know they have an unwinnable tribunal/court case if they try to play toooooo hard ball ... they will deal.

did you drop some jam in your keyboard or something? Every time you hit a full stop it seems to get stuck and pumps out three of them

 

[Lance Uppercut]

So, does a clause exist in the players contract that could be enacted that would eventuate in the players becoming a delisted free agent ?? Sure, it might not say, "If we load you up with drugs and are found guilty of it, you will be allowed to break your current contract no questions asked", but it does exist. Spin it how however you like.

no, it doesn't exist.

It's one of the biggest and most stupid misconceptions in this whole sad saga.

There is no clause.

There is only Contract Law 101, in which you learn that if one party does not uphold its contractual obligations then another party can try to have the contract legally voided.

Please keep up

 

[The 747]

Definately not impossible for the tribunal to rule in Hurley's favour. It could go either way but I can't see it ever getting that far. Guess we will find out what his intentions are soon enough

Won't get that far, if he wants to leave he will be allowed to leave via a reasonable (which won't be full value) trade. The adults are back in charge at the EFC these days.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Maybe I didn't word it correctly. I'm
just saying that if a trade fails then I agree it's not a certainty that the grievance tribunal would approve a breach of contract to allow him to leave as a DFA.

But then it's hard to rule it out as a decent chance based on history.

I understand what you're saying, but I probably diametrically disagree on the last point.

Given that we've had a number of high profile players leave, each of which has been accompanied by the same tired "DFA clause" song and dance, and not a single one has come even remotely close to that occurring - with examples from where EFC have gotten top value AND gotten unders - then I think history clearly points to the likelihood of a it happening now as being virtually nil.

I do get, however, that you're talking about in the event of it actually getting there, that you think it's unlikely but you can't rule it out (for the admittedly very odd logic of it being something EFC supporters believe, ergo it's probably wrong) but let's go beyond the crayon drawing analysis (no offence to you personally) and look at it logically.

The clause, as I've repeatedly pointed out, doesn't exist. It's merely an expression of everyday contract law whereby if one party doesn't uphold its contractual obligations then the other party can apply to have the contract legally voided. This could be done in a court of law, but I'd imagine it would more often and normally occur in an industrial relations tribunal of some sort.

Because the AFL is the AFL, and are a closed system (this is important, and I'll return to it shortly), they have their own mechanism to resolve such issues. It's known as the Grievance Tribunal. So, the process would presumably be as follows:

• EFC, Hurley + management, and Club Y try to broker a deal
• Reasonable offers and counter-offers are made
• No resolution is successful (the 1:55 dash for the fax is unsuccessful)
• Hurley + management apply to the AFL to have their case heard in the Grievance Tribunal
• Case is heard at some point, decision reached

Right? That's about the only way I can see it happening.

Here's the problems with it being successful, as I see it.

The grievance tribunal will only be constituted to consider one issue only: whether Hurley should be released from his contract due to the contractual failings of EFC regarding his health and safety. In making this assessment there will be a number of factors to consider. First and foremost, the grievance tribunal is not a rubber stamp on this matter. It will, like all tribunals would, have a strong disposition to not unnecessarily overturning an existing system and existing mechanisms.

So, the point I mentioned earlier about the AFL being a closed system? Within that system exist particular mechanisms to allow a player to move clubs. This is the trade system. The grievance tribunal would be extremely loath to overturn this. So, if as in the example above, a trade has been negotiated, but been unable to occur, why would the tribunal override this? It is NOT there to make it easier for Club Y to get a cheap deal. If, as EFC have claimed, and in the example above, they have made reasonable attempts to get a trade done, then that's it. The tribunal will simply say no dice, you should have worked out a trade. If EFC had refused to trade it would be a different story, but they haven't and wouldn't.

The other key point is that usually trades and the trade period are the only way to move clubs. However, in this exact and particular instance, there is another way - and that is to void the contract and move as a DFA. So there is, in reality, no reason to wait until the trade period. If Hurley was so distraught at his contractual treatment he has no reason to wait a year - and this is what Caracella was referring to when saying the window has closed.

Now, personally, I'm not sure I completely agree; because I believe Hurley + management could reasonably argue the wait was for no other reason than to give EFC a fair chance to make a trade. But in that case, that's exactly what they have tried to do! It's not entirely on EFC to take any offer, whilst similarly they must entertain fair offers.

The simple fact of the matter is, the reason for Hurley leaving CAN ONLY BE that his contractual requirements were not met. It can not be because he craves success elsewhere, or his preferred club are unwilling to do a reasonable deal, or any other reason. So the general bullshit spouted around this issue is nothing other than ignorant twaddle.

And frankly, with all of the above, coupled with EFC's assurances that they won't stand in the way, I think it's blindingly obvious why it will never even get close to that point, and at the end of the day a deal will be made, that - just like all the other deals - will result in either EFC getting about right value or most likely a little bit unders.

****ing simple innit

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Would you genuinely like me to quote case law?

The common sense button is a far more useful way.

The argument is that Hurley can leave as a DFA if he were so hostile to Essendon.

The counter is that if Essendon were equally hostile, he would not be playing anywhere in 2017 because 'actual' law outweighs 'AFL' law.

The reality is neither of these two things will happen, and I'm tired of moron after moron trying to claim it would.

no mate, 'actual' law and 'AFL' law would be one and the same, in this case; because it's a closed system and the grievance tribunal is the mechanism. So its resolution is the actual, legal resolution.

If Hurley was made a DFA via this process, he could immediately be signed by the club of his choice and start a preseason.

But, as above, it won't happen

 

[The 747]

"Actual law outweighs AFL law" riggght. When one is being condescending, one should ensure one is correct I say.

 

[Jade]

no mate, 'actual' law and 'AFL' law would be one and the same, in this case; because it's a closed system and the grievance tribunal is the mechanism. So its resolution is the actual, legal resolution.

If Hurley was made a DFA via this process, he could immediately be signed by the club of his choice and start a preseason.

But, as above, it won't happen

Nah mate, 41.18 very specifically points out that the grievance tribunal ruling could very much be subject to a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

As you say, it WON'T happen - but it most certainly could.

 

[Jade]

"Actual law outweighs AFL law" riggght. When one is being condescending, one should ensure one is correct I say.

41.18 - more than welcome to look it up.

 

[The 747]

41.18 - more than welcome to look it up.

Thanks don't need to. The law in relation to sporting bodies and the courts is pretty well settled.

 

[Jade]

Thanks don't need to. The law in relation to sporting bodies and the courts is pretty well settled.

'Don't need to' = Don't want to admit was wrong.

What I said was completely correct, and can be verified.

But go ahead, act like a child.

 

[The 747]

'Don't need to' = Don't want to admit was wrong.

What I said was completely correct, and can be verified.

But go ahead, act like a child.

Again if you are going to be condescending, make sure you are correct. What is this 41.18 that you keep waving around?

 

[Jade]

Again if you are going to be condescending, make sure you are correct. What is this 41.18 that you keep waving around?

Do you not know?

If you don't know how do you even begin to claim I was wrong?

 

[The 747]

Do you not know?

If you don't know how do you even begin to claim I was wrong?

No I don't, I would assume it is an AFL law of some kind. I'm looking forward to being enlightened.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Nah mate, 41.18 very specifically points out that the grievance tribunal ruling could very much be subject to a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

As you say, it WON'T happen - but it most certainly could.

yes, but courts are incredibly loathe to overturn appropriate tribunals. Which, I understand, is pretty much what you're saying - but for me it's not even worth considering as an option

 

[Jade]

No I don't, I would assume it is an AFL law of some kind.

It is the agreement between the AFL and AFLPA, the CBA.

It governs the policies and processes being questioned here, grievance tribunal process.

You see I know this, because I've had to.

 

[Jade]

yes, but courts are incredibly loathe to overturn appropriate tribunals. Which, I understand, is pretty much what you're saying - but for me it's not even worth considering as an option

Completely agree.

 

[carnthedons]

It is the agreement between the AFL and AFLPA, the CBA.

It governs the policies and processes being questioned here, grievance tribunal process.

You see I know this, because I've had to.

Was it brought up in the Gumby stalking case?

 

[The 747]

It is the agreement between the AFL and AFLPA, the CBA.

It governs the policies and processes being questioned here, grievance tribunal process.

You see I know this, because I've had to.

OK thanks. I'll leave it there other than to say it is the wrong way around to quote the inferior law stating the law is inferior as authority for the superior law to be superior;it is circular. Cheers.