No Opposition Supporters Re-signing Tex, Danger and Sloane *** Crows Only ***

Your thoughts on Dangerfield?


  • Total voters
    684
Status
Not open for further replies.

sgPanther

All Australian
Joined
Apr 27, 2003
Posts
653
Likes
798
Location
1.35° N, 103.81° E
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Panthers (SANFL)
There are so many good arguments for both sides in here that you have me going from he's staying to he's going, back and forth.

Only those in the inner circle at the club or Paddy's circle are likely to know until it's announced at this stage.

I'm going to lose my mian source (sauce?) of entertainment when this all wraps up.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Wood_Duck

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Posts
10,812
Likes
10,505
Location
Not in Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
CDFC, Arsenal
I don't even agree it can be called a "flaw" when it was inserted by design. A flaw implies a loophole or an oversight in the drafting of the document... but by virtue of the fact there are two separate and distinct categories (RFA and FA), it follows that it is not a flaw but a clear provision - the purpose of which must necessarily be to be activated at some point!
A flaw is an imperfection. It makes quite a difference if you know what it means.
 

crowhead

Senior List
Joined
May 19, 2015
Posts
210
Likes
314
Location
Adelaide, Australia
AFL Club
Adelaide
The expectation with Free Agency was that even the Resticted FA's would have large contracts infront of them that their original club wouldn't/couldn't match
I disagree - this is what that Ralph idiot was arguing but if we take a strictly legal view (which is where my background lies) - the rule is to be read and interpreted as it reads. If a judge, for example, interprets a piece of legislation, their go-to position is often "well, Parliament MUST have meant something by these words, they didn't just include them for fun, so what is the effect of those words?" In this case, it is the same. They are not just words that people wrote down thinking no-one would ever activate or rely upon them. They are included for a reason, and that reason is in recognition of the fact that players who have given 8 years service are not entitled to the same benefits as those who have given 10 years service.
 

Stiffy_18

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
37,871
Likes
11,930
Location
who cares
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sacramento Kings
So is Bickley very confident that Dangerfield will sign with us for 2 years? I am guessing he might have as good an info as anyone in the media.
 

crowhead

Senior List
Joined
May 19, 2015
Posts
210
Likes
314
Location
Adelaide, Australia
AFL Club
Adelaide
A flaw is an imperfection. It makes quite a difference if you know what it means.
Don't be a smartarse mate. I do know what it means - and going a step further I know the legal effect of what it means. Flaw, imperfection, loophole, oversight in drafting. Same same same same.

Not something included by design.
 

SmegHead

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Posts
4,092
Likes
4,608
AFL Club
Adelaide
I disagree - this is what that Ralph idiot was arguing but if we take a strictly legal view (which is where my background lies) - the rule is to be read and interpreted as it reads. If a judge, for example, interprets a piece of legislation, their go-to position is often "well, Parliament MUST have meant something by these words, they didn't just include them for fun, so what is the effect of those words?" In this case, it is the same. They are not just words that people wrote down thinking no-one would ever activate or rely upon them. They are included for a reason, and that reason is in recognition of the fact that players who have given 8 years service are not entitled to the same benefits as those who have given 10 years service.
I agree with you, my previous comment is what the expectation was, not what is actually in the rule.
 

ftmch

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Posts
2,421
Likes
2,553
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Legs, Wests Tigers
The expectation with Free Agency was that even the Resticted FA's would have large contracts infront of them that their original club wouldn't/couldn't match, or that the team wasn't in a position in regards to premiership chances and this player is not in their plans.

Adelaide are the first team where it is more beneficial to the original club to match the offer. We are on the cusp of a premiership window and Danger is at the prime of his career. To lose him would be a setback to us. I expect the AFL would rather sweeten our deal than incur the wrath of the AFLPA.
I just don't understand how the AFLPA are in a position to impose their wrath on anyone, given they were a key part of how the current arrangement is structured.

If they didn't want clubs to use it, they shouldn't have agreed to the option to do so in the first place. It's not as if we're talking about some fine print in the agreement that we'd be immorally exploiting either - it's a key, well known, integral part of the friggin' arrangement.

If we can and want to match, we should.
 

headache1

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Posts
10,171
Likes
13,701
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sacramento Kings, Arsenal
Lets see how long the rule lasts if we match.
I don't understand why the AFLPA would want to get rid of it. As it stands, if a player is both happy staying where they are, or moving to another club that is willing to pay them more, it can be used to their advantage. If for instance, a player would like to stay at their current club, but is not being offered what he believes to be market value, he can then accept an offer from a rival club who is willing to pay him what he's after. This delivers an ultimatum to the current club by essentially saying "pay up, or lose me for whatever compensation the AFL decides upon". If the current club doesn't budge, then that player has a clear, hassle free pathway to the club of their choice, on the money they want.

Plus, would anybody really care if the RFA side of things disappeared if it's supposedly not allowed to be used anyway?
 

SmegHead

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Posts
4,092
Likes
4,608
AFL Club
Adelaide
I just don't understand how the AFLPA are in a position to impose their wrath on anyone, given they were a key part of how the current arrangement is structured.

If they didn't want clubs to use it, they shouldn't have agreed to the option to do so in the first place. It's not as if we're talking about some fine print in the agreement that we'd be immorally exploiting either - it's a key, well known, integral part of the friggin' arrangement.

If we can and want to match, we should.
I agree, but the AFLPA is a Union, and Unions by design look after their members rights very fiercly.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

crowhead

Senior List
Joined
May 19, 2015
Posts
210
Likes
314
Location
Adelaide, Australia
AFL Club
Adelaide
I agree with you, my previous comment is what the expectation was, not what is actually in the rule.
Fair enough. I take your point and also agree that might have been the expectation. But - the lawyers who drafted the rules for the AFL would have been quite clear on the legal principle: words are given their ordinary meaning and no extraneous (outside, background knowledge or context) can be included in interpreting those rules.

Another way of putting it is that, in a strict court sense, the court doesn't give a *** about what the "intention" of the parties was, when the words of the contract is clear.

Yes yes yes I know this isn't a contract... it's the same principle.
 

Wood_Duck

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Posts
10,812
Likes
10,505
Location
Not in Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
CDFC, Arsenal
I don't understand why the AFLPA would want to get rid of it. As it stands, if a player is both happy staying where they are, or moving to another club that is willing to pay them more, it can be used to their advantage. If for instance, a player would like to stay at their current club, but is not being offered what he believes to be market value, he can then accept an offer from a rival club who is willing to pay him what he's after. This delivers an ultimatum to the current club by essentially saying "pay up, or lose me for whatever compensation the AFL decides upon". If the current club doesn't budge, then that player has a clear, hassle free pathway to the club of their choice, on the money they want.

Plus, would anybody really care if the RFA side of things disappeared if it's supposedly not allowed to be used anyway?
They have already had a say on matching RFA offers and have threatened to take action if it happens.
 

fabs33

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 25, 2009
Posts
6,748
Likes
11,744
Location
Back in S.A.
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sporting Clube de Portugal
The idea that the AFLPA would have a hissy fit over a club exercising one of the most important rights they have under the Free Agency rules the AFLPA themselves agreed to isn't something I see stopping us. We'd be stupid not to match, and I suspect those who think we shouldn't are those who don't want to see Geelong weakened by having to trade for him. The only question for us is whether we can match, from a financial perspective.
 

ftmch

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Posts
2,421
Likes
2,553
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Legs, Wests Tigers
I agree, but the AFLPA is a Union, and Unions by design look after their members rights very fiercly.
Yeah, I get that. But if they are so offended by the notion of a club taking the option to match an offer, don't agree to it in the first place. They haven't got a leg to stand on.
 

Wood_Duck

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Posts
10,812
Likes
10,505
Location
Not in Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
CDFC, Arsenal
Yeah, I get that. But if they are so offended by the notion of a club taking the option to match an offer, don't agree to it in the first place. They haven't got a leg to stand on.
Restriction of trade is the leg they will stand on.

Im not agreeing with them but its what they have said.
 

headache1

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Posts
10,171
Likes
13,701
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sacramento Kings, Arsenal
They have already had a say on matching RFA offers and have threatened to take action if it happens.
Have you got a link for this? I'd be interested to read.

Not sure what action they plan to take when they were party to the rules as they were being drawn up, and then signed off on them.
 

headache1

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Posts
10,171
Likes
13,701
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sacramento Kings, Arsenal
Restriction of trade is the leg they will stand on.

Im not agreeing with them but its what they have said.
That comes up a lot with the AFLPA, yet they never seem to do anything about it. I can see how the draft may be a restriction of trade, but RFA? It's not like a club matching an offer then forces that player to stay where they are. Other avenues for them to go elsewhere open up after that. Our version of RFA is far less restrictive than the NBA for instance.
 

ftmch

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Posts
2,421
Likes
2,553
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Legs, Wests Tigers
Restriction of trade is the leg they will stand on.

Im not agreeing with them but its what they have said.
But by signing of on the agreement that gives the clubs a right to match an offer, they are are as guilty as anyone (perhaps even more than the other parties, because they're job is to represent the player in the process). Signing off on it in the hope that no club would actually take up the option is no justification at all.
 

1970crow

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Posts
26,732
Likes
27,468
Location
alice springs
AFL Club
Adelaide
Lets see how long the rule lasts if we match.
I thought the scuttlebutt was more along the lines of the AFL removing compensation in its entirety. That would result in every club matching reasonable FA offers. The AFL must have been fully aware that matching would occur, otherwise why bother with the different FA categories in the first place. Surely, they wouldn't design a system and hope that no one uses a particular mechanism enshrined within it.
 

Samcro24

Suffering from BS Awareness
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Posts
5,718
Likes
12,136
AFL Club
Adelaide
It's not a flaw in the rules. Everyone knew what the rules were when the agreement was signed off by all parties. Very similar rules to NFL, everyone knew what they were doing.
I wouldnt be so sure.

Strikes me that just about every new AFL law is fundamentally flawed. Think of all the things theyve ballsed up.

COLA
MRP
Clash jumpers
Father Son Rule
Rule Interpretations
Sub Rule
FA Compo

It gets discussed and debated at length. Then finally, after a year or two gets changed to how it should have be in the first place.

"Finally, common sense prevails" -Should be the AFL motto.
 

Wood_Duck

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Posts
10,812
Likes
10,505
Location
Not in Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
CDFC, Arsenal
I thought the scuttlebutt was more along the lines of the AFL removing compensation in its entirety. That would result in every club matching reasonable FA offers. The AFL must have been fully aware that matching would occur, otherwise why bother with the different FA categories in the first place. Surely, they wouldn't design a system and hope that no one uses a particular mechanism enshrined within it.
RFA will disappear. Paul Marsh was pretty emphatic that he didnt want clubs to have the ability to undermine the intention of FA. They dont own the players blah blah blah
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom