How do Dees get away with it!!!!!!!!!!!

[Feral Swan]

AFL get swans board to sign up to Buddy deal for full term yet melbourne can let Clarke go with no salary cap consequences.
MITCH Clark's departure from Melbourne has been made official, with the two parties agreeing to terms relating to his retirement. It means Clark will be removed from the club's list and none of his entitlements will be included in the Demons' 2015 salary cap.

[ernie koala]

No doubt this would of been noted by the Swans camp.

I suspect if Buddy's career is cut short by some misfortune, like Clarkes was, they will use The Demons/ Clark case as a precedent, and seek the same outcome.

If Buddy just retires, that's a different scenario and I'd think his salary cap would still be applied for the full term of his contract.

[R-1]

They came to terms with him. Hopefully gave him all the money he's owed now.

What ernie said basically.

[goswannies]

I don't think it's the coming to terms with the player that is the issue. It's the not having the entitlements included in the cap.

[Ludwig]

Maybe the payments go into the 2014 cap.

I've never been able to find a comprehensive definition of the TPP rules. I wonder if it's a fixed system that applies to all, or the rules are flexible whereby the AFL can make adjustments on the run.

[bondy]

Whatever happens, the hapless Dees won't attract too much attention for this I suspect. If it was Swans / Hawthorn / Geelong I imagine it would be a different story.

[Feral Swan]

Well if the Swans follow the Mitch Clarke precedent in 5+ years when Buddy is struggling to produce, then I am sure he can easily succumb to a career ending mental illness.

[stellation]

There may be provisions for medical retirement they've considered in Clarke's case? I honestly don't have an issue with it for either Clarke or Melbourne, given the circumstances.

From memory Michael Voss retired with a year to go and there was some fuss over the remaining year of his contract counting/not counting against the salary cap.

[liz]

There may be provisions for medical retirement they've considered in Clarke's case? I honestly don't have an issue with it for either Clarke or Melbourne, given the circumstances.

From memory Michael Voss retired with a year to go and there was some fuss over the remaining year of his contract counting/not counting against the salary cap.

Voss wasn't able to retire the year he wanted to. He had to remain on the Lions' list, despite having no intention of playing for that final year, just because the Lions' prior year salary cap couldn't absorb the retirement payment. I believe it was the same reason Nic Fosdike retired with his knee injury after the Swans had finalised their list for the following year, meaning he stayed on it.

[goods78]

Is there such a thing in AFL contracts as exit clauses for serious injury, bringing the club in to disrepute etc?

I know the players used to receive a match payment in addition to a salary. Could the Swan's have paid a very high match payment and a lower salary to Buddy to get around the issues of injury etc?

[goswannies]

Is there such a thing in AFL contracts as exit clauses for serious injury, bringing the club in to disrepute etc?

I know the players used to receive a match payment in addition to a salary. Could the Swan's have paid a very high match payment and a lower salary to Buddy to get around the issues of injury etc?

Far as I can tell with Buddy the problem isn't him being paid out if he retires early. His manager has publicly stated that he won't be paid out if not playing. It's that his salary will continue to be included in the TPPs for the extent his contract (regardless of what money he does or doesn't receive & regardless of the reason of his retirement). The AFL made this very clear. The problem with Melbourne is that the press release stated that in their case that with Clark "none of his entitlements will be included in the Demons' 2015 salary cap."
If he's contracted until the end of 2015, then there are different rules for the Swans & Dees.
None of this has anything to do with Clark or his medical condition, per se. It's a TPP issue

[Doctor]

This is a difficult one to go anywhere near. Clarke has serious mental health issues and Melbourne have been as supportive of him as they can. I think we need to trust that the AFL have considered the circumstances and made a decision that is within the rules but also understanding of this very sad situation. There are no winners here and Melbourne have clearly not done anything to rort the cap. Let's just hope that Clarke is ok and can come to terms with his condition in time and live a healthy and happy life post-football.

[Ludwig]

What I don't understand about this is why can't a contract be renegotiated? If a contract is extended or the terms are changed by mutual consent, doesn't that change get reflected in the TPP? Suppose Buddy quits because he want to pursue another profession, a Formula One racecar driver for example; why should his forfeited salary be included in TPP.

And where are the answers to any of these sort of questions answered?

[stellation]

Is there such a thing in AFL contracts as exit clauses for serious injury, bringing the club in to disrepute etc?

I know the players used to receive a match payment in addition to a salary. Could the Swan's have paid a very high match payment and a lower salary to Buddy to get around the issues of injury etc?
They still receive a match payment for each game, but the figure is specified by the CBA so we couldn't change it greatly- we could include (and may have) a non guaranteed portion of the contract that is triggered based on the number of games he plays, so in theory that might not get paid if he doesn't play them- but I believe that potential payout has to be factored into the salary cap anyway.

Just on minimum game incentives- Tippett was reported as having a clause for a 2 year extension on his contract for playing an average number of (or minimum) games per season. 20 I think? You'd assume there was something to cover the sanctions last year, but I wonder if this year makes him nervous (if that clause exists)?

[0918330512]

What I don't understand about this is why can't a contract be renegotiated? If a contract is extended or the terms are changed by mutual consent, doesn't that change get reflected in the TPP? Suppose Buddy quits because he want to pursue another profession, a Formula One racecar driver for example; why should his forfeited salary be included in TPP.

And where are the answers to any of these sort of questions answered?

A player can certainly re-negotiate a contract when his initial one expires. But terms of the initial contract can't be. He is drafted under these terms & the TPPs are reflected thusly. Otherwise a player could price himself out of other clubs reach and then immediately change the contract to make it more affordable.

I have no idea about the following hypothetical way around a Buddy-type situation, but a player like Tippett, who wanted to change clubs & had a specific club in mind, could nominate for a ridiculously high & unaffordable (to most other clubs) 2 year contract and then when that expired renegotiate an extension for another few years at a far more reasonable rate. He would, in fact be better off having a front end loaded contact as he would benefit from compound interest earning.

[Ludwig]

I'll give an example of a situation:

A player is contracted through 2015 at 400k per year. The contract is renegotiated this year and extended another year until 2016. The salary is renegotiated at 600k in total for the years 2015 and 2016, so the salary is increased in total by 200, but divided over the remaining years of the contract. So the player takes a 100k cut in 2015 to get 300k in 2016. Is there anything wrong with this? And what would be included in TPP for the years 2015 and 2016.

In the above case the salary is decreased in one year. But suppose the club decided to increase the salary of the player in 2015. I am sure that would be included in the TPP, so logically, a reduction should be as well. You often hear about players taking salary cuts to keep other players from going elsewhere (Geelong). So I would imagine these cuts would go to adjusting the TPP, or else it would be pointless.

[Reggi]

That change was done becaise of wretchmond and darren gasper. He nominated $275k and renegotiate d as soob as he reached richmond

[Xie Shan]

No offence but that's a fairly ordinary OP considering the vastly different circumstances involving the two players.

[goods78]

They still receive a match payment for each game, but the figure is specified by the CBA so we couldn't change it greatly- we could include (and may have) a non guaranteed portion of the contract that is triggered based on the number of games he plays, so in theory that might not get paid if he doesn't play them- but I believe that potential payout has to be factored into the salary cap anyway.

Just on minimum game incentives- Tippett was reported as having a clause for a 2 year extension on his contract for playing an average number of (or minimum) games per season. 20 I think? You'd assume there was something to cover the sanctions last year, but I wonder if this year makes him nervous (if that clause exists)?

Thanks very much. Some interesting strategies here!

[goods78]

Far as I can tell with Buddy the problem isn't him being paid out if he retires early. His manager has publicly stated that he won't be paid out if not playing. It's that his salary will continue to be included in the TPPs for the extent his contract (regardless of what money he does or doesn't receive & regardless of the reason of his retirement).....

That is interesting. I guess with a side like us that struggled to make any profit any cash saving is a good thing. Only a single whammy if buddy goes down!

[ernie koala]

That change was done becaise of wretchmond and darren gasper. He nominated $275k and renegotiate d as soob as he reached richmond

One of my all time least favourite Swans !!