Traded Tom Mitchell [traded to Hawthorn with pick 57 for pick 14 & 52]

[Angry Red Bull]

No, they AFL would not lose, how is it a restraint on free trade?
The free agency rules state - the total length and amount of contract must be included in the salary cap for the full length and amount. You think the courts are going to allow a club to circumvent a duly executed contracted?

Nothing to do with restraint of trade at all.

I haven't read the free agency rules themselves, but I would be extremely surprised that there wasn't a clause there that provides for the eventuality that arms length parties were to rescind or vary a contract other than by arrangement to circumvent free agency rules. There would have to be a clause

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Nothing to do with restraint of trade at all.

I haven't read the free agency rules themselves, but I would be extremely surprised that there wasn't a clause there that provides for the eventuality that arms length parties were to rescind or vary a contract other than by arrangement to circumvent free agency rules. There would have to be a clause

When you offered a stupid contract Buddy had no chance to fullfill, the AFL said, are you sure.. we're going to hold you to this. And the Swans said yep. No ifs or buts.

 

[SSSSSS]

Nothing to do with restraint of trade at all.

I haven't read the free agency rules themselves, but I would be extremely surprised that there wasn't a clause there that provides for the eventuality that arms length parties were to rescind or vary a contract other than by arrangement to circumvent free agency rules. There would have to be a clause

If you can't stick by a 9 year contract don't offer one.

It's the only reason Hawthorn and GWS didn't end up with Buddy. Neither team can compete with the lunacy of a 9 year contract. Would set a precedent for future clubs to offer massive length contracts if Sydney gets bailed out of their short sightedness.

 

[Jordie_tackles]

So you would be okay with trading your pick for him?

He will not go for anything like that. BF is always good for a laugh.

I would love Melbourne to trade pick 8-10 if we had it, next years first also assuming it is in that range, but would prefer to be sure if it. He is best 22 in any midfield in the Comp.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

When you offered a stupid contract Buddy had no chance to fullfill, the AFL said, are you sure.. we're going to hold you to this. And the Swans said yep. No ifs or buts.

You clearly don't understand law. it solely matters what the rules stipulate not some hyped up nutter at afl headquarters. That we sign a stat dec isn't part of the contract and doesn't legally add in any way to the contact between the three parties. The only problem under a stat dec if there can be one is under the oaths act.

This is the second time I've been told this nonsense. I'll locate the rules and formally advise upon them so we all know where the swans/ buddy stand. Getting pretty sick of

"The afl told you how it would work"

Sorry the afl aren't the adjudicators, the law and ultimately courts are

 

[Angry Red Bull]

If you can't stick by a 9 year contract don't offer one.

It's the only reason Hawthorn and GWS didn't end up with Buddy. Neither team can compete with the lunacy of a 9 year contract. Would set a precedent for future clubs to offer massive length contracts if Sydney gets bailed out of their short sightedness.

The rules are the rules and law is the law. Matters nought what people think including afl.

There would likely be a clause in the rules allowing contract revisions done on arms length. There would also likely be an anti avoidance clause preventing abuse but that clause would customarily excuse contact variations done on arms length basis. In arbitrating what is or isn't arms length it is a court as final adjudicator not the afl.

 

[SSSSSS]

The rules are the rules and law is the law. Matters nought what people think including afl.

There would likely be a clause in the rules allowing contract revisions done on arms length. There would also likely be an anti avoidance clause preventing abuse but that clause would customarily excuse contact variations done on arms length basis. In arbitrating what is or isn't arms length it is a court as final adjudicator not the afl.

The rules are the rules and the law is the law?

Kind of like sticking to a contract?

Sure you could take it to court but the AFL won't take that very lightly after deliberately warning you multiple times on the consequences of offering a 9 year contract and having a gentlemans agreement that it would be seen through.

You've already bit the hand that fed you once and got a spank. I don't think the AFL would take it very well if you tried to screw them over again.

 

[Books]

If Sydney are allowed to back track one iota on the Buddy contract then every club will want to rort the system.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Wasting my time talking to you about this given the stated attitude

 

[FlowersByIrene]

You clearly don't understand law. it solely matters what the rules stipulate not some hyped up nutter at afl headquarters. That we sign a stat dec isn't part of the contract and doesn't legally add in any way to the contact between the three parties. The only problem under a stat dec if there can be one is under the oaths act.

This is the second time I've been told this nonsense. I'll locate the rules and formally advise upon them so we all know where the swans/ buddy stand. Getting pretty sick of

"The afl told you how it would work"

Sorry the afl aren't the adjudicators, the law and ultimately courts are

I don't think you understand how the law works in this space. Swans are a licensee of the AFL, they abide by THEIR rules, or they can happily go elswhere and offer Buddy a lesser contract in a league that isn't the AFL.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I don't think you understand how the law works in this space. Swans are a licensee of the AFL, they abide by THEIR rules, or they can happily go elswhere and offer Buddy a lesser contract in a league that isn't the AFL.

No not quite. Every decision a person makes (in this case afl) is reviewable under equity. Ie the afl can't just decide to revoke a licence (even though the contact may say they can) unless the revocation is made on equitable principles. Understand?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

No not quite. Every decision a person makes (in this case afl) is reviewable under equity. Ie the afl can't just decide to revoke a licence (even though the contact may say they can) unless the revocation is made on equitable principles. Understand?

Yes I do understand, and I think compromising the AFL would be a circumstance where the AFL can quite satisfactorily banish the Swans for life.

The Swans are more than allowed to alter their contract terms with Buddy Franklin to a lower amount if they want to, but his original contract must be included in the Salary Cap of the Swans. You can pay him whatever he wants (under his amount) but his full amount will be included in the Salary Cap for the full length of the contract.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Yes I do understand, and I think compromising the AFL would be a circumstance where the AFL can quite satisfactorily banish the Swans for life.

The Swans are more than allowed to alter their contract terms with Buddy Franklin to a lower amount if they want to, but his original contract must be included in the Salary Cap of the Swans. You can pay him whatever he wants (under his amount) but his full amount will be included in the Salary Cap for the full length of the contract.

You've read the rules and interpreted them have you? Because if you haven't then what you say is wrong.

A licence breach would need to be way worse than a dispute regarding one breach of free agency. You believe what you will.

This conversation is futile.

 

[Furn2]

Nothing to do with restraint of trade at all.

I haven't read the free agency rules themselves, but I would be extremely surprised that there wasn't a clause there that provides for the eventuality that arms length parties were to rescind or vary a contract other than by arrangement to circumvent free agency rules. There would have to be a clause

No part of a restricted free agents contract can be changed for any reason.

It's not complicated.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

No part of a restricted free agents contract can be changed for any reason.

It's not complicated.

Actually it is way more than you think.

Even if the free agency rules dictate that then it's seeking to impose a restriction on what may be agreed between arms length parties upon chosen variation if that is their mutual desired path. By doing so the clause is onerous and unconscionable in it's application and therefore likely unenforceable. The only thing which may be enforceable is a financial penalty for the variation

Look no disrespect but I don't want to disgorge every aspect of my studies when you won't even accept issues when stated

 

[Olian]

Yes I do understand, and I think compromising the AFL would be a circumstance where the AFL can quite satisfactorily banish the Swans for life.

The Swans are more than allowed to alter their contract terms with Buddy Franklin to a lower amount if they want to, but his original contract must be included in the Salary Cap of the Swans. You can pay him whatever he wants (under his amount) but his full amount will be included in the Salary Cap for the full length of the contract.

Banish the Swans given others have gotten away with tanking and rotting the salary CEO can't see it happening.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Banish the Swans given others have gotten away with tanking and rotting the salary CEO can't see it happening.

Those teams took their punishment and didn't sue the AFL, that poster was suggesting the Swans would try and rort the system through the courts by suing the AFL. Which I don't believe for a second would happen, but if it were, yeah, the Swans would be cut.

 

[Furn2]

Actually it is way more than you think.

Even if the free agency rules dictate that then it's seeking to impose a restriction on what may be agreed between arms length parties upon chosen variation if that is their mutual desired path. By doing so the clause is onerous and unconscionable in it's application and therefore likely unenforceable. The only thing which may be enforceable is a financial penalty for the variation

Look no disrespect but I don't want to disgorge every aspect of my studies when you won't even accept issues when stated

You have no clue what your are talking about I'm afraid.

The AFL makes the rules regarding the salary cap.

No matter what you pay Buddy the terms of the original contract apply in the salary cap.

Not only that but any adjustments made wil count in both the original terms and the new terms.

These are the rules plain and simple unless you are saying the salary cap can just be completely ignored.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You have no clue what your are talking about I'm afraid.

The AFL makes the rules regarding the salary cap.

No matter what you pay Buddy the terms of the original contract apply in the salary cap.

Not only that but any adjustments made wil count in both the original terms and the new terms.

These are the rules plain and simple unless you are saying the salary cap can just be completely ignored.

Where did you do your degree?

 

[The German Hunter]

And back on Tom Mitchell......

 

[Angry Red Bull]

And back on Tom Mitchell......

Yes please lol

 

[HairyO]

The rules are the rules and law is the law. Matters nought what people think including afl.

There would likely be a clause in the rules allowing contract revisions done on arms length. There would also likely be an anti avoidance clause preventing abuse but that clause would customarily excuse contact variations done on arms length basis. In arbitrating what is or isn't arms length it is a court as final adjudicator not the afl.

And the AFL have a rule called "bringing the game into disrepute" where the penalties are limitless.

There is another rule that a 2/3 majority of clubs can overrule anything they want to.

If the Swans pull a swifty with Buddy they will be hammered. Simple as that.

 

[Furn2]

Where did you do your degree?

Deakin and then my Phd at Rmit but that's beside the point.

Are you saying that the salary cap rules can be ignored or not ?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Actually it is way more than you think.

Even if the free agency rules dictate that then it's seeking to impose a restriction on what may be agreed between arms length parties upon chosen variation if that is their mutual desired path. By doing so the clause is onerous and unconscionable in it's application and therefore likely unenforceable. The only thing which may be enforceable is a financial penalty for the variation

Look no disrespect but I don't want to disgorge every aspect of my studies when you won't even accept issues when stated

Have you got the part of law school yet that teaches you about real world legal transactions, the importance of good faith, ongoing relationships and best interest negotiations?

If any player or club took the AFL to court and tried to bring the house of cards down they would be blacklisted forever. Sydney doesn't want that, the AFL doesnt want that. Expand your thinking outside the textbook for once. This is coming from a law school grad.

 

[Olian]

Those teams took their punishment and didn't sue the AFL, that poster was suggesting the Swans would try and rort the system through the courts by suing the AFL. Which I don't believe for a second would happen, but if it were, yeah, the Swans would be cut.

A bit of a long bow to draw given no precedence on the matter.