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

[Olian]

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.

John Elliott always said he was ready to go to court over the draft and salary cap and had the legal advice to confirm position but didn't proceed. If he didn't proceed its hard to see anyone else pushing the legal case.

But the Bosman case shows a player will do it eventually (although that case was based on different principals to that of a draft/salary cap).

 

[Tedeski]

I'm staggered that so many think, 'oh we'll just give him another 100k and he will stay'.

Imagine your on 100k a year and you're boss presents you an offer of 80k for the next year. Any normal person would ask questions and attempt to renegotiate. Unless there are instant back flips you are going to search elsewhere.

Sydney may well find more money for him but the damage has already been done.

Damage?

Where's this crap coming from?

Just wait for fhings to unfold.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

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.

The afl trade ban on the swans was illegal and had it been contested would have been overturned. A SC even offered his services to slap an ounce of integrity into the afl to no avail I'm afraid. Fortunately for all, the swans took the non confrontational route as you advocated. Did they (the afl) deserve that? No. IMO they deserved to be held to account for their abysmal conduct.

Understand completely what you refer to in the deck of cards comment. Fine.

"You can't have every player" philosophy and the discriminatory conduct culminating in MF abusing our CEO for having done what we were legally entitled to do are hardly acts of good faith are they? They are the acts of cronies who need a rude awakening IMO. The trade ban was the 'punishment' though illegal. What I have learnt in my professional life is that sometimes ignorant people seek to oppress and when that occurs you should give them that rude awakening

 

[Tedeski]

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

Like Mitch Clark firstly to Melbourne forr 800K, only to have the contract torn up due to mental illness?

Yeah you know what you're on about.
The Swans are no fools & they know very well that precedent has been set a number of times regarding having contracts made null & void.
Should Buddy finish early for similar reasons, we have the people in place to remind tge AFL of the precedent they themselves have set.

 

[Books]

Precedents mean nothing in the AFL. Just look at the MRP.

 

[Olian]

Precedents mean nothing in the AFL. Just look at the MRP.

Clutching at straws now.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

View attachment 294648

Isn't that site/account ran by a 19yr old?

 

[Furn2]

Like Mitch Clark firstly to Melbourne forr 800K, only to have the contract torn up due to mental illness?

Yeah you know what you're on about.
The Swans are no fools & they know very well that precedent has been set a number of times regarding having contracts made null & void.
Should Buddy finish early for similar reasons, we have the people in place to remind tge AFL of the precedent they themselves have set.

Clarke wasn't a restricted free agent.

 

[Books]

Like Mitch Clark firstly to Melbourne forr 800K, only to have the contract torn up due to mental illness?

Yeah you know what you're on about.
The Swans are no fools & they know very well that precedent has been set a number of times regarding having contracts made null & void.
Should Buddy finish early for similar reasons, we have the people in place to remind tge AFL of the precedent they themselves have set.

There is no precedent for the AFL changing the rules in regards to Free Agent contracts.
The contract must be honored or the whole system becomes a rort.
I do admit, if the AFL do ever change the rules, it will almost certainly be to the benefit of a club from NSW.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

There is no precedent for the AFL changing the rules in regards to Free Agent contracts.
The contract must be honored or the whole system becomes a rort.
I do admit, if the AFL do ever change the rules, it will almost certainly be to the benefit of a club from NSW.

As it probably should to counterbalance the discrimination and cronyism that emanates from Mexico.

 

[JeddaB]

Absolutely no clue. If you think the Swans will take the AFL to court you've got as much sense as Pridham does in buying art.

You're starting to remind me of that guy from Good Will Hunting who attempts to pick up girls by spouting stuff he read and pass it off as his own.

The club has made its bed, and will lie in it . They knew the risks at the time.

They also didn't have a trade ban, so you can stop with the unjust crusade there also. They were more then welcome to trade if they removed their CoLA they had been abusing. Want proof? See what Mike Fitzpatrick has to say about the issue.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Absolutely no clue. If you think the Swans will take the AFL to court you've got as much sense as Pridham does in buying art.

You're starting to remind me of that guy from Good Will Hunting who attempts to pick up girls by spouting stuff he read and pass it off as his own.

The club has made its bed, and will lie in it . They knew the risks at the time.

They also didn't have a trade ban, so you can stop with the unjust crusade there also. They were more then welcome to trade if they removed their CoLA they had been abusing. Want proof? See what Mike Fitzpatrick has to say about the issue.

There is no need to make personal insults to me. I don't to you.

All comments I make are considered positions based upon my experience and education. All opinions have adequate evidence and support. I'm not going to buy into your attempts to incite an exchange

 

[melbournehammer]

Absolutely no clue. If you think the Swans will take the AFL to court you've got as much sense as Pridham does in buying art.

You're starting to remind me of that guy from Good Will Hunting who attempts to pick up girls by spouting stuff he read and pass it off as his own.

The club has made its bed, and will lie in it . They knew the risks at the time.

They also didn't have a trade ban, so you can stop with the unjust crusade there also. They were more then welcome to trade if they removed their CoLA they had been abusing. Want proof? See what Mike Fitzpatrick has to say about the issue.

With respect Mike Fitzpatrick is one of the most conflicted individuals on this issue. We swans fans have next to no time for his position on this.

But that really is beside the point. I know there are a lot of crack sports and competition lawyers on this website because they say so. The reality is that the salary cap and the clauses around this will probably be challenged one day by someone. It happened with foschini, it happened with bosman, it happened in buckley v tutty and it happened with the nrl draft.

Whether they are successfully defended will depend on the principles in nodernfeldt and whether the rules are no more restrictive than are absolutely necessary.

But lets deal with the here and now hey ? The swans won't challenge them so we are left with a situation where buddy will be playing for us for an extended period and may at different times cause us to struggle with managing the salary cap and from time to time we may have to lose someone wed like to keep. At the moment this may well be mitchell. I get that and I don't begrudge a single player trying to get as much money as they can from footy - as far as i am concerned they earn it in a far more justifiable manner than gil or any of the cronies at afl house, including mike fitzpatrick.

So in my view mitchell has probably indicated how much he wants and the swans will make some sort of an offer after today based on who decided to run around again and who doesn't. I don't believe for a moment that he will refuse to play for the swans based on what he perceives to be an inadequate offer. He knows and his agent knows how the game is played.

On the other hand he may refuse to play for them because he wants to be number one rooster at the hawks or blues or even at the eagles once priddis moves on.

What is he worth ? Look if he was going in this years draft he'd be top five. at worst top ten. But then you have his preparedness to play for different clubs - and if he is on the open market his agent could be fielding a lot of different offers.

my instinct is that if the swans win there may be a few retirements which would open up a bit of room for him in the club and financially - but he might never be offered what he might get on the open market. So he will have to make a decision and then see what his agent can do by negotiating with several clubs at once.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

[QUOTE="melbournehammer, post: 47049745, member: 142880"

Whether they are successfully defended will depend on the principles in nodernfeldt and whether the rules are no more restrictive than are absolutely necessary.
[/QUOTE]

There was a position paper prepared in 2006 by an academic in application of the principles in nodernfeldt to the then facts of afl for aust and nz sports law journal. The conclusion was that the afl system was likely an unreasonable restraint of trade as it then stood. The recommendation of that academic to seemingly traverse the problem was the introduction of free agency.

Perhaps that's just some nonsense I've read though.......

 

[The German Hunter]

Seriously blokes, can you take this to my penis is bigger than yours thread?

 

[Furn2]

[QUOTE="melbournehammer, post: 47049745, member: 142880"

Whether they are successfully defended will depend on the principles in nodernfeldt and whether the rules are no more restrictive than are absolutely necessary.

There was a position paper prepared in 2006 by an academic in application of the principles in nodernfeldt to the then facts of afl for aust and nz sports law journal. The conclusion was that the afl system was likely an unreasonable restraint of trade as it then stood. The recommendation of that academic to seemingly traverse the problem was the introduction of free agency.

Perhaps that's just some nonsense I've read though.......[/QUOTE]

So in order to change Buddy's contract, the Swans will go to court and attempt to bring down the whole system meaning an end to the cap, the draft and the unequal distribution of AFL money ?

This would of course result in Collingwood and West Coast taking turns winning the flag and half the league including Sydney folding.

It's just not happening.

So if we could move on with the thread about Tom Mitchell in the knowledge that under the rules regarding Restricted Free Agency, Buddy's contract can't be changed and will have to count in the cap no matter what.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I have no idea what is in the mind of the swans. I'm merely a supporter. The rules are applicable to all. If those rules are legally flawed (on which I express no opinion absent reading them and forming an opinion) then each has the right to challenge them whether people like it or not and draw upon precedents that support the argument if they exist. Ok?

 

[Obeanie1]

So how about todays article suggesting the Hawks will look to pass on the 2nd round pick they would get from the Hill trade for Mitchell.

A pick in the 20s?

That doesn't sound realistic at all.

 

[JeddaB]

So how about todays article suggesting the Hawks will look to pass on the 2nd round pick they would get from the Hill trade for Mitchell.

A pick in the 20s?

That doesn't sound realistic at all.

The 2nd rounder freo doesn't actually have. Horrible journalism.

 

[JeddaB]

With respect Mike Fitzpatrick is one of the most conflicted individuals on this issue. We swans fans have next to no time for his position on this.

But that really is beside the point. I know there are a lot of crack sports and competition lawyers on this website because they say so. The reality is that the salary cap and the clauses around this will probably be challenged one day by someone. It happened with foschini, it happened with bosman, it happened in buckley v tutty and it happened with the nrl draft.

Whether they are successfully defended will depend on the principles in nodernfeldt and whether the rules are no more restrictive than are absolutely necessary.

But lets deal with the here and now hey ? The swans won't challenge them so we are left with a situation where buddy will be playing for us for an extended period and may at different times cause us to struggle with managing the salary cap and from time to time we may have to lose someone wed like to keep. At the moment this may well be mitchell. I get that and I don't begrudge a single player trying to get as much money as they can from footy - as far as i am concerned they earn it in a far more justifiable manner than gil or any of the cronies at afl house, including mike fitzpatrick.

So in my view mitchell has probably indicated how much he wants and the swans will make some sort of an offer after today based on who decided to run around again and who doesn't. I don't believe for a moment that he will refuse to play for the swans based on what he perceives to be an inadequate offer. He knows and his agent knows how the game is played.

On the other hand he may refuse to play for them because he wants to be number one rooster at the hawks or blues or even at the eagles once priddis moves on.

What is he worth ? Look if he was going in this years draft he'd be top five. at worst top ten. But then you have his preparedness to play for different clubs - and if he is on the open market his agent could be fielding a lot of different offers.

my instinct is that if the swans win there may be a few retirements which would open up a bit of room for him in the club and financially - but he might never be offered what he might get on the open market. So he will have to make a decision and then see what his agent can do by negotiating with several clubs at once.

Brilliant objective post mate. Probably the best I've seen in this thread from both sides! As I said earlier in the thread, Sydney would be doing all they can to keep Tom. He's an absolute star.

44 salaries are very hard to balance, and both of our teams are the best in the business at it. If you can't keep him, I do hope we can give it a shake. No idea what we'd give up though. Gotta give to get quality.

 

[Obeanie1]

The 2nd rounder freo doesn't actually have. Horrible journalism.

True but there are a fair few players being moved on. Will be interesting what they get for Mayne as a compo pick.

But in any case a 2nd rounder for Mitchell is way unders. Eagles I'd suggest would offer pick 12 with possibly some later pick swaps in the Eagles favour.

 

[JeddaB]

There is no need to make personal insults to me. I don't to you.

All comments I make are considered positions based upon my experience and education. All opinions have adequate evidence and support. I'm not going to buy into your attempts to incite an exchange

My issue with your posting, is it has an unfounded matter of fact tone to it. Your club wouldn't be silly enough to open the Pandora's box you're proposing mate. I think you're over analysing the situation and drawing some very long bows. Let's just leave all that to the people paid to do it all, and hope our respective clubs can keep/snag the 23 yr old ball magnet!

 

[JeddaB]

True but there are a fair few players being moved on. Will be interesting what they get for Mayne as a compo pick.

But in any case a 2nd rounder for Mitchell is way unders. Eagles I'd suggest would offer pick 12 with possibly some later pick swaps in the Eagles favour.

I'd hazard a guess and say he will go for a 1st and 2nd.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

My issue with your posting, is it has an unfounded matter of fact tone to it. Your club wouldn't be silly enough to open the Pandora's box you're proposing mate. I think you're over analysing the situation and drawing some very long bows. Let's just leave all that to the people paid to do it all, and hope our respective clubs can keep/snag the 23 yr old ball magnet!

I haven't drawn any conclusions nor spoke on behalf of the swans. I have merely analysed the issues in a technical sense. It is you and others that have sought to draw long bows trying to put words in my mouth and jump to conclusions. Word of advice- don't.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

So how about todays article suggesting the Hawks will look to pass on the 2nd round pick they would get from the Hill trade for Mitchell.

A pick in the 20s?

That doesn't sound realistic at all.

The most authoritative analysis of the mitchell was provided melbournehammer in this thread. The swans will see how dust settles post retirements and will make up the $100k app deficiency currently between other offers and the swans. He is probably 90% chance to stay at swans