I feel like I'm missing something here.
If I make a 6 year contract for 500k pa, and I, for whatever reason not beyond my control, decide to break that contract halfway through, why should you pay me for the remaining 3 years? Regardless of where I go afterwards? I break a contract, I don't get paid. That's how I think it should be. And of course it should work the other way as well. A club needs to pay out the contract unless the player is traded willingly and agrees. If an agreement is made - then the contract holds. Is that so weird??
I feel like I'm missing something here.
I agree here. I do not know the ins and outs of GA's life. But it would still fall under 'agreement'.
Does anyone actually believe that 1) Buddy will finish his nine-year contract and 2) Sydney will be obliged to leave that million dollar gap in their salary cap?
I don't, even though at the time the AFL supposedly made Sydney sign additional legalese to that effect.
I reckon he's there for the 9 Dave, .. if he can't play,.. he'll be on the Coaching staff/PR dept.
Unless he gets a career ending injury, .. there'd be an out clause for that you'd think.
Yep, I do.
Buddy likes money, so he won't retire.
Nobody else will trade for him.
AFL and Sydney are not best friends over this particular subject.
I'm guessing most of his contract is covered under the grandfathered COLA contracts that the AFL "helped" Sydney with when they gave them the trade bans.
Ablett has indicated there are family reasons behind his desire to head back to Victoria. This week Cooper Cronk, an NRL player of similar standing to Ablett, announced he was moving to Sydney next year to be with his partner.
It prompted widespread adulation, including from the very top of rugby league when NRL CEO Todd Greenberg said: “A family first approach to your decision-making is always a recipe for success.”
But Ablett looking to make a similar move saw him labelled as selfish, a waste of money and a poor leader.
TFS is a joke??
What a revelation!!! Stop the fkn presses!!!
Difference is work places don't have a TPP or salary cap, football does. Both Ablett and the Suns have entered into a contract where X amount has been agreed to and that figure needs to be adhered to. It prevents clubs like Sydney signing guys for 9 years and then getting out of their contract early when it suits both parties.
My understanding is that Cronkis out of contract and simply not re-signing. The NRL also operates differently as a trade isn't required so Cronk can just go where he wants.
In Ablett's case he still has a year to run and a trade would need to be done.
There has been a bit of talk over here that Gaz senior is not doing too well so perhaps Junior wants to go home and support/care for him
But footballers are not employees. They are contractors, hence, the contract. I know that's loose, given the AFL is sole arbiter anyway. Employees fall under general employment law, coloured by any contract they agreed to. Contractors, like footballers, agree to terms, including duration of contract and renumeration for that period. How can it be ok for the duration period to be shortened, yet the sum contracted for maintained?
You say above 'Both Ablett and the Suns have entered into a contract where X amount has been agreed to and that figure needs to be adhered to' Yes, I agree. Providing the services that the players was contracted for - ie, actually playing for the club for the duration of the contract, is also adhered to.
I don't understand how the Sydney example you mention has anything to do with Ablett. Buddy was contracted for 9 years. He does his nine years - he needs to play for the club or at least provide a recognised service, for 9 years. The issue there is signing someone on for longer than they can realistically play for, as a back door way to pay a larger sum over a shorter time (TPP rort). In this case, since all contracts should be sanctioned by the AFL anyway, the decision needs to be made on whether a contract
can be for part play/part other contracted services, such as coaching. That's how you deal with the issue, not allow players to willy-nilly break contracts and make the whole thing a farce.
Is anyone suggesting that Gary's pay is back dated? If not, him finishing early has no effect on the salary cap whatsoever.
On a side note, if that is the case why on earth did the Suns do that? Wouldn't they have assumed that like GWS they would be starting to have salary cap issues by now? If anything I'd expect his contract to have been front loaded when they had a heap of kids and buckets of salary cap space, so him leaving early (for whatever reason) shouldn't hurt any other teams from a salary cap perspective (effectively GCS would have used more than they needed).
Are you suggesting that he moved there out of benevolence?
Are you equally suggesting that someone being compelled to adhere to a contract is contingent on their team's success?
I think the second suggestion was a bit more equal than the first.
Gary went to GC for himself.
don't even fkg kid yourself about some 'set up the club' bs. he went for that fattest pay check in the game.
As I would have.
100%, a million dollars is a million dollars.
Only one of them's Gary Ablett Jr.
He was on ■■■■ all at Geelong, last contract he signed there was $1M, pity it was for 5 years. He was the best player in the game, on $200k.