Season 2017 - North Melbourne


#181

For the top up team he would have been handy


#182

You mean, Courageous Hodgey aside?


#183

Hodge was traded.
He couldn’t be picked up as a delisted free agent and couldn’t nominate for the draft.


#184

He retired.
Then he had his papers amended so he could be traded for a token pick.


#185

Hawthorn involved in retrospective trade tampering, again? Say it ain’t so!


#186

Yeah.
And the only way he got to Brisbane was via trade.

How does the Hodge situation match Swallow?
Trade period is finished.
He wasn’t delisted so he can’t be picked up as a free.
There is no other avenue to play again next year unless he was delisted.


#187

Unless, as I said, like Hodge, it was treated as a ‘special case’.


#188

That actually had nothing to do with Hodge. He retired and then Brisveghas were going to pick him up easy peasy. The AFL stepped in at the last minute and said you can’t do that, you can’t retire and then come back in the for the next year. So he was forced to un-retire so that Hawks could trade him for peanuts to ensure he got to play in the end.

No one really got anything out of that, it didn’t help Hodge and it didn’t help Hawks. If the AFL had allowed it to occur then they would have been forced to allow others to do that and it would have been a free for all of players retiring and then going for free to the club of their choice.


#189

I’d say he’s borderline young.


#190

Well - that doesn’t really make sense. If no one profited, it wouldn’t have been done. Hodge retired. Brisbane talked him into joining them. The AFL saw a beacon of hope for Brisbane, and - as I said twice now - treated it as a special case.
I didn’t say that Hodge did anything wrong. I didn’t say whoreforn or Brisbane did anything wrong. I said … that Hodge was treated as a special case.
The conversation was about Swallow. He has retired. He can’t get back. Unless…the AFL treated him as they did Hodge.


#191

When a player retires, they sign a waiver saying they cannot enter the draft and cannot be picked up as a delisted free agent.

Whilst a player can be delisted or retire at any stage during the season, the team still holds ownership of the players contract until October 31.
That’s why players who are delisted (Chapman in 2013, Gibson this year) can still be traded during trade period even after they have retired or been delisted.

The Hodge situation was not a ‘special case’. It is within the rules. Scott Lucas mentioned as much on SEN during trade week.

I recall the AFL ‘bent the rules’ for Sam Shaw and Joe Patful though. They both retired yet they mysteriously were allowed to be picked up in the rookie draft after retiring.
In Sam Shaw’s case, his contract was up so Adelaide took him in as a rookie so that they could monitor his concussion problems. Apparently a club doctor cannot look after a player at the expense of the club who isn’t on the team pay wages. Players have to use the special fund out in place by the Players Association and they have a select group of doctors to go to (this usually doesn’t include highly paid club doctors).

How Patful was allowed to be rookied after having a year still to go in his contract after retiring is still baffling. If ever there was a ‘special case’, that was it.


#192

Well I stand corrected, then. I’m not arguing with Scotty.


#193

I thought that was because he still had $$$ on a contract. They couldn’t afford to pay him out under the previous year’s cap, so they had to put it under the next year, and that meant having him on the list somewhere. And you’d rather free up a main list spot than a rookie spot.

I’m sure similar things have happened before, other than using the last rookie pick to “draft” them.

I don’t think anyone was complaining about a club having to use a list spot (and continue to pay) a retired guy who wasn’t ever going to play.


#194

As far as I can see it should depend on whether the “I’m retired” paperwork was actually signed and submitted. If you’re retired, you’re meant to stay that way.
And we know we can trust the AFL with complete transparency in matters like this.


#195

They sign a waiver you say? Sounds familiar


#196

It not about whether he was going to play or not.
Usually when a player retires with a year to go on his contract, that year needs to be paid out and included in that seasons salary cap.
Patful retired and was then picked up in the rookie draft meaning they shifted his salary to the following year.

Such a rule was mentioned when Buddy signed his 10 year contract at Sydney. It was stated that he cannot retire early at any stage without the remainder of his contract being paid out and included in that seasons salary cap.


#197

I don’t really see what the problem is.

Having to use 1 of ~44 spots and a percentage of your salary cap on someone who’s not going to play is a disadvantage - not an advantage.
Not sure what the other option is, frankly.
I wouldn’t have a problem if the Swans had to keep Buddy on the list, whilst they were still paying out his contract. Goes without saying there’s actually no way known Sydney could pay out multiple years of Buddy’s contract under one year’s cap - you have to pay 95% minimum of about $10M cap, and he’s on $1M a year…

Again, it’s a disadvantage, hopefully makes clubs think twice about ludicrous contracts.

I have a feeling there’s no official rule on this. All this is is the “I have retired” form being lodged Nov 1, rather than October 31, to have that salary go under the next year’s cap.


#198

Gold coast aren’t interested so the point is moot


#199

By shifting his salary to the next year, they escaped breaching the salary cap. Meaning they didn’t get fined and didn’t lose draft picks.
Having Patful on the rookie list meant they didn’t lost the picks they used on Setterfield, Perryman and Isaac ■■■■■■■. I cannot recall what they did to get the pick they used for Taranto. GWS definitely got an advantage in exchange for the 44th list spot.

If Buddy retired early, I’d prefer Sydney get hit for salary cap breach and lose picks than have Buddy sit on a rookie list.

You’re last line is correct though. There probably is some kind of contractual rule that hasn’t been explained or critiqued yet.


#200

They put his 2017 salary under the 2017 cap.
Again, I’m not sure why this is an advantage, or an escape, or a dodge.