I don't think you have understood what I was saying. Basic background to what I was saying. When an uncontracted player (or free agent) switching clubs lodges a contract with a new club or a contracted player lodges a contract with a new club (this might be in the form of ripping up the contract with club A and signing a new one with club B ala Cloke or just lodging a new version of an existing contract where both club A and B pay part of it ala Deledio) the new contract has to be lodged with the AFL for approval. They can a) approve the contract as is b) reject it or c) approve it with conditions. I was referring to Franklin in the context that the AFL chose c). When players retire while under contract due to injury the player and club are routinely allowed to negotiate an agreement where the player only gets part of the money, or he gets all of the money but part of it goes in the club's injury payments (which sit outside the normal TPP) in either case allowing less cap burden for the club. Or they are allowed to put the player on the rookie list meaning he still gets all his contract money but only part of it is counted under the cap for those year(s)-this is what GWS have just done with Patfull. And when guys retire whilst contracted because they no longer wish to play (see Yarran, Garlett et al) clubs are routinely allowed to tear up the contract with no cap impact. Under the rules the AFL could in each of these cases force the clubs to bear the full contract they signed under their cap even though the player is no longer playing, but for whatever reasons they choose not to. However from what we have been told re the Franklin contract they approved it with a specific clause that if he retires before the 9 years for whatever reason he retires Sydney still have to bear his full salary under the cap for each of those years. I never suggested they 'made up' a rule in doing this, only that they enforced the existing rule in a way in which they hadn't previously enforced it in a heap of other recent cases. It stands to reason that it suited the AFL to do this otherwise they wouldn't have done it, as to why it suited them you'd have to ask them but obviously they aren't going to do something they don't usually do unless a) it suits them or b) they feel it is absolutely necessary for some compelling reason.
The relevance of this to the Ablett issue? Most agree that if Ablett is to come to Geelong in 2018 he will try to take a pay cut to facilitate it as Geelong are unlikely to be able (or want to) pay him a full million. Now he could do it the Cloke way or the Deledio way but either way most of us think it's what he would do. Now it's fairly clear that when he does that the new contract has to be approved by the AFL and they can either a) approve it, b) reject it or c) approve it with conditions. I assume you agree the rules allow that. My reason for referencing Franklin was the main argument I am hearing from most people (not you specifically) against this happening is a version of 'but the afl hasn't been using this power it has to block or put conditions in contracts for a long time so they won't do it now. My point is the Franklin example shows that just because they don't enforce a rule in a particular way 98 % of the time doesn't mean they won't enforce it in that way the other 2 % of the time if they think there is a compelling enough reason for them to in that case.
That's all I've ever been arguing. I've never argued that the AFL is making up some rule or having some vendetta against Geelong if it does that, nor have I ever said it's certain or even likely to happen. Just that it's possible and a possible complication in this case, and just because it hasn't happened a lot in the past doesn't mean it won't happen now. That's it. Obviously you have completely understood what I have been arguing to come to some of the conclusions you have. But anyway, sometimes those things happen.
Fair enough. It's possible we both misunderstood each other so sorry if that was the case.