Carroll, Holland in Mad Monday scuffle

[Mono 455]

Wish they would just bite the bullet and fire the gun

IMO he isnt in our best 22 so what a waste of time keeping him

Its a no brainer to me

Unless he agrees to retire, I don't think he can be paid out AND replaced on the list. He is contracted until Oct 09; paying him early doesn't remove him from the list.

If he can't be traded, then I suggest he is offered a position in Casey 2's for 2009 (or work out a retirement package).

ED: From the CBA between AFL & AFLPA

14.9 No Player shall be delisted from the List of an AFL Club from the period

immediately following the Pre-Season Draft until the day immediately after the next

trading period without the consent of the AFL General Manager – Football

Operations.

[Guest Golgothan]

ED: From the CBA between AFL & AFLPA

14.9 No Player shall be delisted from the List of an AFL Club from the period

immediately following the Pre-Season Draft until the day immediately after the next

trading period without the consent of the AFL General Manager – Football

Operations.

That refers to the period following the PSD and up until trade week the following year, it doesn't say that we can't delist him while he's in contract between trade week & PSD.

Which really means that this year any players delisted this year must be done between 06/10/08(start of trade week) and 16/12/08(Pre-season Draft). That's why contracts run until 31st of October, so that when it finishes it is during this period. So while Weetra & Bode are already gone, their contract still runs until 31/10/2008

You need to Refer to the CBA 12. Termination Payment and more specifically section C and D if applicable

12.1 An AFL Club shall be entitled to apply to the AFL to delete a Player’s name from

its List and by written notice to the Player in accordance with the contract, terminate

the contract upon the Player being delisted. In such case, the contract shall be at an

end provided that the AFL Club shall pay the Player by way of compensation:

(a) the balance of the base payment payable for the year in which the Player was

delisted;

b. Match payments calculated at the rate applicable to the relevant competition

(AFL Senior or State Body equivalent) in which the Player last played, for

the balance of the year in which the Player was delisted;

c) where the Player’s contract had one or more further years to run, the base

payment for each year following the year in which the Player was delisted;

and

(d) where the Player’s contract had one or more further years to run, a further

number of Match payments calculated at the rate applicable to the relevant

competition in which the Player last played (in total not to exceed 22).

[beelzebub 23,364]

Unless he agrees to retire, I don't think he can be paid out AND replaced on the list. He is contracted until Oct 09; paying him early doesn't remove him from the list.

yes he can

its whether the club has the where with all to do so.

its a contract..you can pay it out.

Like any business you can sack people. There are of course guidelines and consequences of doing so. If Melbourne decides to meet these, he's gone...**pufff** Gone !!

really it comes down to money

[Tigers Dayz 2]

yes he can

its whether the club has the where with all to do so.

its a contract..you can pay it out.

Like any business you can sack people. There are of course guidelines and consequences of doing so. If Melbourne decides to meet these, he's gone...**pufff** Gone !!

really it comes down to money

Since noone can tell me roughly what he's on, I'm going to say $240k.

So, if it comes down to MFC paying out $240k for nothing, then he's **puff** Gone !!

[beelzebub 23,364]

Since noone can tell me roughly what he's on, I'm going to say $240k.

So, if it comes down to MFC paying out $240k for nothing, the he's **puff** Gone !!

well..in the vogue of your summation..yes...exactly.

The argument evolves a little more than that though.

its comparitve values.

What some rightly suggest is the real question posed is does Melbourne want to gain another player at the lower end to develop.

So in that instance the choice is pay ( using yor figure ) 240 k for Carroll to go nowhere running around the Magoos stamping time. Value to MFC = NIL

or

Payout Carroll..and rookie another.. base payment 33k odd total cost..240=33= 277K

value to MFC= strictly speaking unquantifiable...but would have to think something positive, at worst a gamble as opposed to the certainty of nothing !!

so its 240 v 273...not alot in it is there ??

[Tigers Dayz 2]

So, it's $273k for a basically insolvent club. Money which could be saved.

[beelzebub 23,364]

So, it's $273k for a basically insolvent club. Money which could be saved.

A matter of perspective no ?? 240 K down the tubes for nothing I would think is even a worse result..

We are going to pay an amount for X players neXt year. Disregard any insolvency issue.. its either there or it isnt. Has no effect on what we pay as a salary cap in the end..We will pay what we will pay. It matters as you what you get for it !!

You can either be master of your destiny...or sit around and cry foul. The circumstance and opportinites are exactly the same. Its all down to attitude.

[deanox 9,914]

So, it's $273k for a basically insolvent club. Money which could be saved.

ok i'll say it once more. pay attention this time because even though it is very obvious, you clearly dont get it.

We pay carroll next year whether he plays or not.

if we want to have a young kid on the list instead of carroll, we can pay carroll out now, and then pay for the young kid.

the extra cost is only the cost of the draftee, because we would have been paying carroll to waste away like yze did this year.

which means the only money that could be 'saved' is the cost of the draftee.

[beelzebub 23,364]

ok i'll say it once more. ....

which means the only money that could be 'saved' is the cost of the draftee.

Hey...pssst !!

Queen and I have a nice brick wall over here.... wanna share ???

[Guest Jack Watts]

We'll obviously have to keep him on the list until the end of '09.

No other club in their right mind would want to make an offer for a trade with him involved.

It is a pain that we have to pay him until the end of his contract but hey, that's Aussie Rules Football.

Basically, Nathan's trouble & I'll be suprised if he even gets many games in the 2nd's next year.

[beelzebub 23,364]

We'll obviously have to keep him on the list until the end of '09.

welcome to the madness that is the forums..

"obviously have to keep him " ?? Why ?? There ARE options...as many here are trying to spell out.it comes down to what the club feels is best for the club. If that means Chop's gone..then Chop's gone.

I do agree that I dont feel its terribly likely that a trade could be sought.. but hell Id take pick 90 at the moment

Strictly by a numbers game.. Take a pick and pay half his salary ( seems to be a Melbourne thing anyway <_< ) .even thats cheaper than just a a payout, same net effect. He's off the list

Again.. there are always options available to a creative thinker.

[Guest Jack Watts]

Again.. there are always options available to a creative thinker.

Noted, but in reality, you know as well as I do that we'll keep him on the list until his contract runs out. We wouldn't even get pick 90!

I agree it's ridiculous to keep him but I think that's what will happen. We'll keep him on next year as a back up for 'injuries' sake ( we know how we love them ). After this, he will be delisted at the end of next year.

It's just an opinion yes but I think it's a valid one.

[beelzebub 23,364]

Noted, but in reality, you know as well as I do that we'll keep him on the list until his contract runs out. We wouldn't even get pick 90!

In reality..I dont. I dont know that the club will at all..I do KNOW that the club is exploring its options. I do know I have read that Cuddles is very open to the idea of getting rid of him.

[Tigers Dayz 2]

ok i'll say it once more. pay attention this time because even though it is very obvious, you clearly dont get it.

We pay carroll next year whether he plays or not.

if we want to have a young kid on the list instead of carroll, we can pay carroll out now, and then pay for the young kid.

the extra cost is only the cost of the draftee, because we would have been paying carroll to waste away like yze did this year.

which means the only money that could be 'saved' is the cost of the draftee.

Yeh, I get it. But if it wasn't for me, you, Bub and Rhino would have nothing to do.

[Rogue 585]

ok i'll say it once more. pay attention this time because even though it is very obvious, you clearly dont get it.

We pay carroll next year whether he plays or not.

QFT.

[QueenC 74]

Hey...pssst !!

Queen and I have a nice brick wall over here.... wanna share ???

And all are welcome !!!

[deanox 9,914]

Yeh, I get it. But if it wasn't for me, you, Bub and Rhino would have nothing to do.

[Nasher 33,615]

Looks like my house :D

[Guest Golgothan]

I know people don't think there's much chance of any club trading for him, but we could try to make it a bit more enticing.

Say Freo for example have some minor interest in Carroll, we offer him to them for their last pick in the draft and we tell them to only offer him a $50k 1 year contract. We'll still have to pay him the difference (like Travis this year) but it'll allow us to get another young kid and will be less then the total cost of his contract had we decided to pay him out and they get an experienced player for not much more then the cost of a draftee.

If he adds nothing for them then they dump him after one season and it hasn't cost them much more then a rookie.

I know this is a long shot and even if we do trade him we'll end up paying some of his contract, but if we do this the deal is improved for the team willing to take him. Not much chance, but it's a better option then keeping him or paying him out.

[Guest fatty]

Well its fairly obvious that Carroll will be retained on the list now.

We have noone else to punch out R Warnock against the Blues next year.

[DeeM 42]

Just heard this but apparently it was Sylvia that punched Holland, not Carroll. And now he is in anger management course

[Guest skipper3]

Not sure on that, if that had happened - we would have heard about it buy now.

CC said everyone on the list behaved really well - except Chopper.

Pure scuttlebut i'd say.

Just heard this but apparently it was Sylvia that punched Holland, not Carroll. And now he is in anger management course

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Just heard this but apparently it was Sylvia that punched Holland, not Carroll. And now he is in anger management course

Shouldn't your post go in the "World has ended" thread in General discussion.

About as accurate.

I would further suggest that you avoided making unfounded allegations of illegal behaviour of any footballer unless it has been clearly appeared in the news media. They normally check their facts and sources and are generally well aware of libel laws.

[Mono 455]

I know people don't think there's much chance of any club trading for him, but we could try to make it a bit more enticing.

Say Freo for example have some minor interest in Carroll, we offer him to them for their last pick in the draft and we tell them to only offer him a $50k 1 year contract. We'll still have to pay him the difference (like Travis this year) but it'll allow us to get another young kid and will be less then the total cost of his contract had we decided to pay him out and they get an experienced player for not much more then the cost of a draftee.

If he adds nothing for them then they dump him after one season and it hasn't cost them much more then a rookie.

I know this is a long shot and even if we do trade him we'll end up paying some of his contract, but if we do this the deal is improved for the team willing to take him. Not much chance, but it's a better option then keeping him or paying him out.

Carroll has to agree to any trade.