List Mgmt. 'Retiring' whilst under contract

[Marc_Remillard]

It's not just a case of the benefit to the Swans was getting Buddy. Because their offer was difficult to match, it meant they didn't have to trade for Buddy, and meant they had an easy task of matching the bid on Mills who was taken at pick 3 by Carlton. If they had have traded for Buddy then that is difficult, and they lose picks/players to get the Buddy trade done, before Mills is even looked at.

For Sydney to get the benefit of Buddy in his prime, while not losing picks/academy players, and then years later some expect them to get bailed out of the deal because it "punishes" the swans, well, that's just laughable.

From memory Franklin was a RFA and Sydney deliberately set that price knowing it would blow GWS out of the water and also way behind Hawthorn's ability to match it and then forcing a trade between the two clubs. It was a ridiculous contract offer at Franklin's age which had nothing to do with bad luck and the AFL made the decision to stop other clubs trying to rort the system. I'm definitely not one to praise the work of the current AFL administration but with this decision they got it right.

If Sydney ends up been crippled by their decision then they only have themselves to blame.

Way ahead of you mate

 

[Ambrosia]

People who work on a contract basis don't just have the contract paid out if their mental health deteriorates. It's unfair to blame football for his mental health since you cannot objectively prove it was the cause (unlike a career ending knee injury).

Beams choosing to cut his career short should not mean Collingwood lose entirely.

Tom Boyd faced arguably more criticism and pressure than any other player in AFL history. He was copping abuse through the AFL media on a daily basis, yet when he decided to retire, he didn't kick up a stink and demand the Bulldogs pay him out. He left it all on the table and graciously retired, just like Beams should

Yes but Beams quite clearly isn’t willingly retiring. Collingwood is kicking him out of the club and it’s being called a retirement to save face

 

[Starburns_]

Buddy was an RFA, different to resigning your own player already on the list
The reason RFA contracts are on the books for the length of the term is to stop clubs offering bullshit numbers to secure the RFA without the original club being able to match and then changing the terms 6 months down the track

This. The Buddy contract is different because the numbers were a bid placed on him by the Swans. Tom Lynch's contract would fall under similar terms.

Yep, and that's the risk of handing out 7-10 year contracts. Clubs should be held accountable for their decisions and not continually be slipped a free 'get out of jail' card under the counter. I think there's definitely an attitude with the clubs of 'all care but no responsibility', I would love to see that changed.

Because like many other contracts in football it has been renegotiated prior to finishing.

If the club wanted the player gone, the player could refuse and get the full amount if they were willing to fulfill their contractual duties (Tippett, Langford). If the player wanted out but still wanted to be paid, the club could (conceivably) enforce the terms of the contract (training, promo appearances, etc.), but no one wins from that, which is why the two parties settle on a smaller lump sum (or in Boyd's case, nothing) that releases the player from his obligations, but provides the club some salary relief. It's just common sense.

As for the bolded, why does only the club bear the responsibility for a contract negotiation? It's not as though the player had no say in the process. Why should a club be completely on the hook for a contract when a player in his prime (Boyd, Rance) just decides he doesn't want to play anymore?

The Beams case is interesting though because he clearly wants it all but does not want to fulfill the requirements of his contract. Makes you wonder if his mental health leave break last year was tactical with regards to this moment approaching.

IIRC Collingwood blew everyone out of the water by offering Daniel Wells a three or four year deal on good money. Similar to the Hawks with Vickery. Didn’t stop either side reaching a settlement with the player long before the contract expired.

How are these two different to the Buddy deal? Someone please explain.

Wells was an unrestricted free agent and thus his contract had no bearing on North's ability to retain him. As for Vickery, I suspect that whilst he and Hawthorn reached a financial settlement on the remainder of his contract, the full amount would still have been counted under the cap (with the difference between the settlement and contract essentially being 'ghost money' in the cap), much like with Buddy.

 

[Gralin]

This. The Buddy contract is different because the numbers were a bid placed on him by the Swans. Tom Lynch's contract would fall under similar terms.



Because like many other contracts in football it has been renegotiated prior to finishing.

If the club wanted the player gone, the player could refuse and get the full amount if they were willing to fulfill their contractual duties (Tippett, Langford). If the player wanted out but still wanted to be paid, the club could (conceivably) enforce the terms of the contract (training, promo appearances, etc.), but no one wins from that, which is why the two parties settle on a smaller lump sum (or in Boyd's case, nothing) that releases the player from his obligations, but provides the club some salary relief. It's just common sense.

As for the bolded, why does only fall on the club bear the responsibility for a contract negotiation? It's not as though the player had no say in the process. Why should a club be completely on the hook for a contract when a player in his prime (Boyd, Rance) just decides he doesn't want to play anymore?

The Beams case is interesting though because he clearly wants it all but does not want to fulfill the requirements of his contract. Makes you wonder if his mental health leave break last year was tactical with regards to this moment approaching.



Wells was an unrestricted free agent and thus his contract had no bearing on North's ability to retain him. As for Vickery, I suspect that whilst he and Hawthorn reached a financial settlement on the remainder of his contract, the full amount would still have been counted under the cap (with the difference between the settlement and contract essentially being 'dead money' in the cap), much like with Buddy.

Yep nothing with the RFA says the contract is guaranteed.

Just the cap hit.

The player can walk away and not take another cent from the club but they still have to count the contract in their TPP

 

[Marc_Remillard]

As for the bolded, why does only fall on the club bear the responsibility for a contract negotiation? It's not as though the player had no say in the process. Why should a club be completely on the hook for a contract when a player in his prime (Boyd, Rance) just decides he doesn't want to play anymore?

Excellent point which i overlooked, i agree with you

 

[Virgin Dog]

Yes but Beams quite clearly isn’t willingly retiring. Collingwood is kicking him out of the club and it’s being called a retirement to save face

Is that clear? Sounds like speculation to me

 

[Virgin Dog]

You are quick to assume the job of playing AFL has no effect on mental health.

That is far from the case. It is a high pressure job both physically and mentally.

Regarding Beams Collingwood knew what they were buying and still went through with it. Too bad for them, dumb decision.

Two first round picks and with a $1.5M payout looming they will have paid $2.5 m for 9 games of football. Now that would have to be a record.

It was an atrocious investment, no doubt about that.

But I'm not sure how this situation is different from, say, an IT developer who signs a 24 month contract to update a company's databases. What if, 6 months into the contract, they decide it's too much pressure and stress. They decide to end the contract short, do they get paid the remainder of the contract, or do they walk away from it? Because that's basically the same situation as Beams

 

[Obeanie1]

It was an atrocious investment, no doubt about that.

But I'm not sure how this situation is different from, say, an IT developer who signs a 24 month contract to update a company's databases. What if, 6 months into the contract, they decide it's too much pressure and stress. They decide to end the contract short, do they get paid the remainder of the contract, or do they walk away from it? Because that's basically the same situation as Beams

The IT developer isnt a celebrity with little private life though. AFL players are basically public entertainers in a highly combative and emotional environment.

The pressure of an IT development deadline simply does not compare to the pressure of being a high level AFL player, not even close.

 

[Obeanie1]

A contract has 2 sides, one of which is that the player plays footy.

If the player doesn't play the club isn't getting anything for free. The don't pay and they don't get the player playing.

If they are a free agent the rules are different as those contracts can be matched.

Cant play injured.

Still get paid though.

 

[Ambrosia]

Is that clear? Sounds like speculation to me

How else would he negotiate a pay out.

 

[Furn2]

Cant play injured.

Still get paid though.

yeh that's the risk u take as a club with big contracts but there's no situation where you have a player playing and you're not paying them.

So there's nothing really to gain by a retirement and not having the salary count unless the player is playing really badly.

 

[nobbyiscool]

There are 2 different questions with the Beams situation.

One is the salary cap issue. Collingwood knew of his issues - in fact they'd experienced them first hand - and took the risk. From a salary cap perspective I don't think there's any doubt they should be subject to the agreed salary.

Two is what Beams should get. Which, given how much a club like Collingwood earns year on year, is a distant secondary issue.

My personal view is that, given the salary should be counted in the salary cap anyway, Collingwood should do the right thing by Beams.

 

[The King!]

It's not just a case of the benefit to the Swans was getting Buddy. Because their offer was difficult to match, it meant they didn't have to trade for Buddy, and meant they had an easy task of matching the bid on Mills who was taken at pick 3 by Carlton. If they had have traded for Buddy then that is difficult, and they lose picks/players to get the Buddy trade done, before Mills is even looked at.

For Sydney to get the benefit of Buddy in his prime, while not losing picks/academy players, and then years later some expect them to get bailed out of the deal because it "punishes" the swans, well, that's just laughable.

100% agree, they knew the risk

 

[old55]

You are suggesting that Beams wants out.

He doesn't, he wants $1.5 million dollars that Collingwood agreed to pay him.

A club can't force a player to play, especially if they have expressed that they are not fit (injury or mental health).

If Beams follows an agreed reasonable rehabilitation process then he's entitled to be paid even if he can't play. It's the same as a knee reco - follow the process and get paid.

If Beams won't follow the agreed reasonable process then that effectively means he wants out and Colling wood should be able to agree a settlement and only have to count that in the cap.

 

[Grin]

The buddy deal is not unique. You sign up an RFA from another club that initial contract is locked in.
It's one advantage the club trying to retain the player has.
They don't have to commit that money into their TPP the same way if they get the player to stay.

Can clubs change the contract in terms of when the money is paid?
For example, Tom Lynch has a heavily back weighted contract. With Rance retiring and freeing up cap space, can Richmond bring forward some of Lynches salary?

 

[Gralin]

Can clubs change the contract in terms of when the money is paid?
For example, Tom Lynch has a heavily back weighted contract. With Rance retiring and freeing up cap space, can Richmond bring forward some of Lynches salary?

Yeah not sure. I know this year they said that the existing club didn't have to match the exact TPP spread to match the offer. To stop a club front loading a deal which would supposedly be unfair. So effectively they are saying they will let a club in theory match any offer however they want as long as the total value is the same.

If they are letting the existing club do that then maybe they will let you bring money forward as long as the total value doesn't go down. But it's the AFL so who knows.

If not Lynch you've got others you could do that with to get the same result in future years so probably not that big a deal.

 

[NZ_Tiger]

If you do that you’re simply giving clubs the power to terminate contracts and pay out 50%.

Just leave it as is. Contracts can only be terminated by mutual consent. That way the player has bargaining power.

You can still get the sack from a contract. Not turning up to work and not fulfilling your tasks like any employee can see your contract torn up. We gave Yarran the “quit before we fire you” talk as he couldn’t meet the minimum requirements of an AFL footballer.

Beams negotiating a payout implies that maybe it isn’t an entirely mutual decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Starburns_]

Can clubs change the contract in terms of when the money is paid?
For example, Tom Lynch has a heavily back weighted contract. With Rance retiring and freeing up cap space, can Richmond bring forward some of Lynches salary?

It's a good point and as Gralin noted, quite possible if the only thing that needs to be the same is the value.

Still, even in such a situation you would just move someone else's money around if you couldn't move Lynch's. Dusty is signed until the same point I believe on a similar level of money so rather than move Lynch's, they might move his. Covering a salary like Rance's though would likely mean altering at least 4 other contracts.

 

[Mofra]

Can clubs change the contract in terms of when the money is paid?
For example, Tom Lynch has a heavily back weighted contract. With Rance retiring and freeing up cap space, can Richmond bring forward some of Lynches salary?

I believe so, noting the AFL has to sign off on any player contract. It's no different to some Richmond players (reportedly) changing their contracts by taking a pay cut and delaying payments to fit Lynch into the cap.

IIRC some Bulldog contracts were front-loaded when Ryan Griffin left as we had to pay existing players extra (noting in the first year of Boyd's contract he was a second year player an on an AFL-mandated contract amount) to meet the 95% salary cap floor.

 

[Gralin]

It's a good point and as Gralin noted, quite possible if the only thing that needs to be the same is the value.

Still, even in such a situation you would just move someone else's money around if you couldn't move Lynch's. Dusty is signed until the same point I believe on a similar level of money so rather than move Lynch's, they might move his. Covering a salary like Rance's though would likely mean altering at least 4 other contracts.

Also depends what cap hit Rance has this year seeing as he retired after list lodgement.

Boyd still made $1mil last year as part of his settlement with the Dogs according the AFL -

Who's in the money? Nine players top $1 million mark

AFL releases total player payment figures. Check out the the big earners from 2019

www.afl.com.au