List Mgmt. 'Retiring' whilst under contract

Virgin Dog

Premiership Player
Oct 29, 2017
3,658
5,955
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I’d suggest you have next to zero idea what either’s true situation is, neither what either financial settlement was / will be.
When have I suggested I know the true situation? Based on the suggestion that Beams would retire for mental health reasons, I don't believe Collingwood have any moral obligation to pay out his contract
 

Virgin Dog

Premiership Player
Oct 29, 2017
3,658
5,955
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Tom Boyd is a very decent person.

Expect Collingwood to have to pay some/most or maybe even all of his contract.
On character alone, Boyd and Beams seem to be very different people to put it nicely.

I just wouldn't think Collingwood will be liable for his contract based on the Boyd precedent. At the very least, I doubt it comes out of their salary cap for the full duration. Its all speculation anyway and none of us really know for sure
 

Capriati

Club Legend
Aug 25, 2019
1,249
1,921
AFL Club
West Coast
When have I suggested I know the true situation? Based on the suggestion that Beams would retire for mental health reasons, I don't believe Collingwood have any moral obligation to pay out his contract
It has nothing to do with morals. It is a contract, it is about what is able to be negotiated between the two parties.

Collingwood will have to pay Beams some form of payment, who knows how much it will be. To expect Dayne Beams to do a boyd and walk away with nothing is fanciful.

Dayne Beams is no Tom Boyd.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gralin

Super Moderator
Apr 8, 2010
33,310
49,552
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Buffalo Bills
If clubs want to pay out a contract let them but keep the salary cap e.g Sav signs a 5 year deal with Geelong tomorrow at 700k a year and retires within 2 years if Geeelong and sav come to an agreement in which he gets half of his remaining salary fine but his 700k a year for the 3 years left must stay on the salary cap. If clubs want to give players 5-6-7 years deals they have to be held accountable like the Buddy deal
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


Well this is what is happening hence why rules need to be brought in to stop the rort.
It's happening now is it? Clubs are retiring players to avoid paying them and everyone is just keeping quiet about it?
 

Proper Gander

Owl whisperer and secret agent
Feb 15, 2015
18,087
31,258
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Mt Buller Demons
I think there might be a slight misunderstanding here about what a contract actually is. It’s an agreement that “can” be enforced by a court. That means that it is only actually binding if one or the other party seek to enforce it. If both parties mutually agree to walk away, it can be ended just like that (or, more likely under agreed terms).

The question I guess is whether the AFL should carry over nullified contracts into the salary cap of a club who have contracted a player, then later both parties walk away. I would normally say absolutely not, but I admit the AFL in their usual daft way of not thinking about future consequences have ballsed this up somewhat by announcing that the Swans must be held to a cap that factors in Buddy’s original contract, even if the contract is amicably terminated on his retirement.

Also, the club with the biggest risk burden if we head down a path of uniformly declaring all clubs MUST see out a contract (at least in cap terms) is GWS surely? I don’t keep up with this stuff but there have been a few lengthy ones signed there lately?
 

Gunf

Premiership Player
Mar 11, 2019
3,615
5,144
AFL Club
Geelong
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



It's happening now is it? Clubs are retiring players to avoid paying them and everyone is just keeping quiet about it?
Well aware of why it is how it is but teams need to start being held to account if they want to sign players to long term contracts... It is a have your cake and eat it to thing
 

Furn2

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 27, 2012
9,261
15,166
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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.
 

Gralin

Super Moderator
Apr 8, 2010
33,310
49,552
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Buffalo Bills
I think there might be a slight misunderstanding here about what a contract actually is. It’s an agreement that “can” be enforced by a court. That means that it is only actually binding if one or the other party seek to enforce it. If both parties mutually agree to walk away, it can be ended just like that (or, more likely under agreed terms).

The question I guess is whether the AFL should carry over nullified contracts into the salary cap of a club who have contracted a player, then later both parties walk away. I would normally say absolutely not, but I admit the AFL in their usual daft way of not thinking about future consequences have ballsed this up somewhat by announcing that the Swans must be held to a cap that factors in Buddy’s original contract, even if the contract is amicably terminated on his retirement.

Also, the club with the biggest risk burden if we head down a path of uniformly declaring all clubs MUST see out a contract (at least in cap terms) is GWS surely? I don’t keep up with this stuff but there have been a few lengthy ones signed there lately?
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.

Well aware of why it is how it is but teams need to start being held to account if they want to sign players to long term contracts... It is a have your cake and eat it to thing
Held accountable how?
If Geelong sign Danger up for 5 more years tomorrow and then 2 years into that both parties agree to walk away for a settlement amount as long as everything up to that point and the settlement amount are included in the cap what's the issue?
 

Proper Gander

Owl whisperer and secret agent
Feb 15, 2015
18,087
31,258
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Mt Buller Demons
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.
quite right - but I thought that rule was brought in specifically for the Buddy scenario - that the AFL made the rule then and there and not before?
 

Gralin

Super Moderator
Apr 8, 2010
33,310
49,552
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Buffalo Bills
quite right - but I thought that rule was brought in specifically for the Buddy scenario - that the AFL made the rule then and there and not before?
Was there a big RFA signing before that? There has still never been a deal like it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the rule didn't exist before Buddy but at the same time it quite easily could have. The way the AFL and it's media report on the rules who would ....
 

The King!

Chosen One
Aug 3, 2004
104,008
86,578
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Cavs, Redsox, Patriots
Bit chicken and egg theory there as no other player in AFL history had received a similar offer. People loved
telling me, but he won us a flag then why not pay the bloke out in full because as people loved to tell me
he won us a flag. Every situation is different and should be dealt with as an individual situation there is
no one size fits all generic solution.

i see what you are saying , like it in theory, but it leaves it open to manipulation. risky in a salary cap league
 

old55

Club Legend
Feb 12, 2011
1,104
885
AFL Club
Melbourne
If the player wants out the club should be able to negotiate a settlement and just count that in the cap.

If the club wants the player out then provided he's prepared to spend the contract duration in the rehab group he should be entitled to the full contract amount and it should all be in the cap. The club would choose to delist him to free list space but they should have to pay out the full contract.
 

Gralin

Super Moderator
Apr 8, 2010
33,310
49,552
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Buffalo Bills
If the player wants out the club should be able to negotiate a settlement and just count that in the cap.

If the club wants the player out then provided he's prepared to spend the contract duration in the rehab group he should be entitled to the full contract amount and it should all be in the cap. The club would choose to delist him to free list space but they should have to pay out the full contract.
In both directions it should come down to a settlement. If there is an injury involved the CBA already has provisions for rehabilitation programs and requires medical reports.

The whole point is both parties have to come to an agreement.
There is incentive for the club to come to an agreement as delisting a contracted player has different implications than retiring one.

Players aren't going to agree to retire when they think they still can play. Generally they are at the end of their careers for one reason or another when it comes to these conversations.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Capriati

Club Legend
Aug 25, 2019
1,249
1,921
AFL Club
West Coast
If the player wants out the club should be able to negotiate a settlement and just count that in the cap.

If the club wants the player out then provided he's prepared to spend the contract duration in the rehab group he should be entitled to the full contract amount and it should all be in the cap. The club would choose to delist him to free list space but they should have to pay out the full contract.
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).
 

Marc_Remillard

Maderator
Jan 4, 2015
6,412
7,067
AFL Club
Melbourne
The question I guess is whether the AFL should carry over nullified contracts into the salary cap of a club who have contracted a player, then later both parties walk away. I would normally say absolutely not, but I admit the AFL in their usual daft way of not thinking about future consequences have ballsed this up somewhat by announcing that the Swans must be held to a cap that factors in Buddy’s original contract, even if the contract is amicably terminated on his retirement.
i disagree, the reason why Sydney has to include Franklin's salary in their cap regardless of what happens is because they obtained him via FA and greatly outbid every other team. That will now make clubs be a little more cautious with future attempts at poaching players with ridiculous bids which they probably think would never reach the end of the contract.
 

Proper Gander

Owl whisperer and secret agent
Feb 15, 2015
18,087
31,258
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Mt Buller Demons
i disagree, the reason why Sydney has to include Franklin's salary in their cap regardless of what happens is because they obtained him via FA and greatly outbid every other team. That will now make clubs be a little more cautious with future attempts at poaching players with ridiculous bids which they probably think would never reach the end of the contract.
I get where you’re coming from, but the notion of poaching shouldn’t be in play once a player reaches free agent status (I’m not a fan of the RFA status either - either you’re free to play where you please or not). Sydney’s mistake was abusing the COLA to outbid all comers hence pissing the AFL off who wanted Buddy at GWS. Which is why they ended up being punished without breaching any rule.

Leaving aside free agent issues - I think holding a club accountable in their cap for a contract that is mutually dissolved is problematic in a sport where career ending injury is a real issue. You can end up crippling teams for nothing but bad luck. No amount of “due diligence” can prevent certain misfortunes.
 

tombomb

Premiership Player
Sep 8, 2007
3,115
4,577
AFL Club
Sydney
Good luck getting any change through that sees any player receives $1 less.

The AFLPA turn into the CFMEU the moment money is mentioned.
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 26, 2007
20,804
14,875
AFL Club
West Coast
I'm assuming this is referring to Dayne Beams. I have to disagree here.

In the real world, when two parties sign a contract, and the party delivering the service (Beams) pulls out prematurely, they are not entitled to a portion of the remaining unpaid contract. If he suffered an onsite injury (i.e. career ending knee injury during a game or training) then he would be entitled to compensation, but pull out for other reasons (mental health, or someone like Wines who gets injured water skiing) and it's not the other party's responsibility.

When Boyd retired, he left the remainder of his contract on the table. If Beams is going to retire, he cannot reasonably expect a payout from Collingwood
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.
 

Obeanie1

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 26, 2007
20,804
14,875
AFL Club
West Coast
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
How much pressure do you think comes with being an elite AFL footballer?

We are talking top ranked players, captains etc.
 

Marc_Remillard

Maderator
Jan 4, 2015
6,412
7,067
AFL Club
Melbourne
I get where you’re coming from, but the notion of poaching shouldn’t be in play once a player reaches free agent status (I’m not a fan of the RFA status either - either you’re free to play where you please or not). Sydney’s mistake was abusing the COLA to outbid all comers hence pissing the AFL off who wanted Buddy at GWS. Which is why they ended up being punished without breaching any rule.

Leaving aside free agent issues - I think holding a club accountable in their cap for a contract that is mutually dissolved is problematic in a sport where career ending injury is a real issue. You can end up crippling teams for nothing but bad luck. No amount of “due diligence” can prevent certain misfortunes.
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.
 

Proper Gander

Owl whisperer and secret agent
Feb 15, 2015
18,087
31,258
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Mt Buller Demons
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.
Fair enough. It’s a valid take on it.

It’s a tangent though in terms of what the OP is getting at though, which is that clubs who take a player that is not FA need to be penalised in their cap in accordance with a player contract for the duration of the contract even though that contract was mutually terminated. From the timing of the thread, I guess the Beams scenario is front of mind, but if that became the rule then it will devastate certain clubs. For example, if Whitfield or Cogs get run over by a bus then GWS won’t be able to use even a part of their 7 year salaries towards filling the gap
 

Marc_Remillard

Maderator
Jan 4, 2015
6,412
7,067
AFL Club
Melbourne
Fair enough. It’s a valid take on it.

It’s a tangent though in terms of what the OP is getting at though, which is that clubs who take a player that is not FA need to be penalised in their cap in accordance with a player contract for the duration of the contract even though that contract was mutually terminated. From the timing of the thread, I guess the Beams scenario is front of mind, but if that became the rule then it will devastate certain clubs. For example, if Whitfield or Cogs get run over by a bus then GWS won’t be able to use even a part of their 7 year salaries towards filling the gap
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.
 

Cripptonite

Senior List
Sep 11, 2016
270
1,211
AFL Club
Carlton
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.
 

D-N-R

Club Legend
Apr 4, 2005
2,483
2,707
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WCE
Players who are ill need to fulfil obligations under their contract. If you do a knee, you would be required to do all rehab.

If you have MH issues, you would still need to do things to be able to return. See specialists etc.

If you are unwilling to return then the contract is not being fulfilled. The 2 parties will negotiate a settlement mainly to avoid legal action.

If the pressure of playing AFL is adding to your MH problems then quitting is to your benefit, but you can't quit and expect the contract to be paid out.
 

Wesley2

Club Legend
May 22, 2016
2,743
4,629
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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.
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.
 

Top Bottom