Carroll looking to do preseason with Saints

Yes Folks it seems that weird mob over at Linton Ave are keen to be seen as the halfway house for all naughty lads !!

if a deal can be worked out then Nathan gets a chance to show his stuff to StKilda with a view to a move. We can only hope .

Come on footy dept's ...sharpen those pencils...do a deal.

( and free up a space on OUR list by clogging theirs !!..what a deal )

It appears that these days a player can run riot and still have the support by the AFLPA and be entitled to full pay even when his actions amount to a breach of his contract - Wayward Demon Nathan Carroll wants to move to Moorabbin

  Quote

The players' union was supportive of Carroll receiving his full entitlements.

Talk about bringing the game into disrepute.

I always used to love Carroll, cause he looked hard and tough and wasn't a robot.

Plus sadly he was our best defender with Rivers always hurt.

But now with the emergence of Garland, Warnock, Martin and of course Rivers.

He has become our 5th string defender, when he isn't playing well I don't think haha cool beard, I think can you just leave.

However I will thank Carroll, for giving me one of my favourite moments in football history. As my most hated player (Fraser Gehrig) will never live that moment down.

Ashley Sampi did a pre season at MFC and....!

Surely if he is allowed to do a pre-season at another club then once he is granted that permission MFC are in the clear as far as freeing up his spot on our list?

I'm happy for us to pay out some of his contract, all of it if we have to, however I don't want to see a situation where he is granted permission to train with St Kilda, they don't like him and he isn't picked up, then the MFC are no longer allowed to replace his spot on the list.

I would have thought that the only fair outcome is that if he is allowed to seek out other clubs, we are allowed to replace him, whether he is successful or not.

  torpedo said:

Surely if he is allowed to do a pre-season at another club then once he is granted that permission MFC are in the clear as far as freeing up his spot on our list?

I'm happy for us to pay out some of his contract, all of it if we have to, however I don't want to see a situation where he is granted permission to train with St Kilda, they don't like him and he isn't picked up, then the MFC are no longer allowed to replace his spot on the list.

I would have thought that the only fair outcome is that if he is allowed to seek out other clubs, we are allowed to replace him, whether he is successful or not.

He has a contract with the MFC to play 2009. Unless he is successful at securing another contract at another Club and both parties agree to annul the contract with the AFL's approval then MFC is still on the hook financially and from a point of list numbers.

Its no beef to MFC's position whether he trains with another Club or not. Training with a Club is not a contractual situation and clearly the StK position is being done with MFC's understanding.

He won't go to the saints. In my opinion this is just Nixon's way to try and shame Melbourne into making a definate decision.

  Rhino Richards said:

He has a contract with the MFC to play 2009. Unless he is successful at securing another contract at another Club and both parties agree to annul the contract with the AFL's approval then MFC is still on the hook financially and from a point of list numbers.

Its no beef to MFC's position whether he trains with another Club or not. Training with a Club is not a contractual situation and clearly the StK position is being done with MFC's understanding.

Training with another club is obviously outside the terms of his current contract with the MFC.

I think the MFC should say train with whoever you want, obviously that is a repudiation of your contract though and good riddance. I cannot see how the AFL could possibly interpret it any other way either.

If he doesn't like that and takes the soft option of not training elsewhere take on the bone head and the AFLPA for breach of contract instead based on his previous actions.

If we allow him to train elsewhere, he doesn't secure a contract, and we are stuck with a dead spot on our list that would be f#%king lame as it gets... seems to be the trend for the MFC administration at the moment.

  torpedo said:

Training with another club is obviously outside the terms of his current contract with the MFC.

Could someone enlighten me please?

Has Carrol been de-listed? Do you have to be delisted to nominate for the PSD?

Don't contracted players move during the trade period normally?

How would this work, MFC de-list Carrol and settle his contract, then SFC pick him up?

He has to be delisted (when is the cut off date?) in order for MFC to fill his spot on the list?

  torpedo said:

Training with another club is obviously outside the terms of his current contract with the MFC.

I think the MFC should say train with whoever you want, obviously that is a repudiation of your contract though and good riddance. I cannot see how the AFL could possibly interpret it any other way either.

If he doesn't like that and takes the soft option of not training elsewhere take on the bone head and the AFLPA for breach of contract instead based on his previous actions.

If we allow him to train elsewhere, he doesn't secure a contract, and we are stuck with a dead spot on our list that would be f#%king lame as it gets... seems to be the trend for the MFC administration at the moment.

Not if it is done with the acquiescence of the Club and the AFL. Its actually in the MFC's interest for Carroll to create some interest at another club.

How is the training at another Club a repudiation of the contract if MFC approves it?

At the moment we already have a dead spot on the list so the position is lame and MFC's own doing by signing him for 3 years in 2006.

  Rhino Richards said:

Not if it is done with the acquiescence of the Club and the AFL. Its actually in the MFC's interest for Carroll to create some interest at another club.

How is the training at another Club a repudiation of the contract if MFC approves it?

That's my whole point, we shouldn't approve such a situation.

It is only in our interest to do so if we get some form of guarantee out of it too, the current situation is a win / win for Carroll and potentially disastrous for us - that's not a deal, that's taking it up the arse.

How can we expect to build a tough, uncompromising side if the club administration is willing to bend over and take it up the arse at any given opportunity.

Put the pressure on Carroll, tell him if he wants to walk out and train elsewhere then he can go for his life, good for him for backing his own ability. If he wants to hang around like a bad smell, not back himself, never play AFL again and prove to the world how soft he really is then that's his choice. Either way he'll get paid his contract, its simply a question of whether he ever wants to play AFL footy again and redeem himself or not.

  Rhino Richards said:

Not if it is done with the acquiescence of the Club and the AFL. Its actually in the MFC's interest for Carroll to create some interest at another club.

How is the training at another Club a repudiation of the contract if MFC approves it?

At the moment we already have a dead spot on the list so the position is lame and MFC's own doing by signing him for 3 years in 2006.

Wasn't there an issue with Holland and Yze playing with Sandy towards the end of the year, because if a player gets seriously injured in his final year of their contract, the club has to compensate them for the following year? What would happen if Carroll does a knee whilst training with the Saints?

Whether Carroll does or does not play AFL again is now outside the remit of the MFC. Clearly MFC dont want him and he must feel similar feelings. Carroll is not hanging around the Club and is not part of the Club's training.

But they have this contract. MFC have a problem. They have a dead spot on the list and they have a contractual arrangement to fulfil It would be in MFC's interest to encourage alternative arrangements where hopefully MFC can release Carroll into the PSD and get some or all of his final year covered by another Club.

It would be extremely stupid of the Club to put any pressure on Carroll at this point. You do that and you are up for harassment, workplace discrimination and even restraint of trade issues.

The best and sensible outcome is to encourage someone else to take him. At worst we have to pay him out next year.

  mo64 said:

Wasn't there an issue with Holland and Yze playing with Sandy towards the end of the year, because if a player gets seriously injured in his final year of their contrcat, the club has to compensate them for the following year? What would happen if Carroll does a knee whilst training with the Saints?

Correct. Its a good point.

It would be interesting to see if Carroll is training with or without approval of the MFC and AFL. If any player were to join / be invited to train with a Club there must be some arrangement for the player to be covered by that Club's insurance policy for injuries sustained during formal training.

What sort of coverage is there for players invited to try out for the squad during a summer but are not currently AFL senior or rookie players?

  Rhino Richards said:

It would be extremely stupid of the Club to put any pressure on Carroll at this point. You do that and you are up for harassment, workplace discrimination and even restraint of trade issues.

The best and sensible outcome is to encourage someone else to take him. At worst we have to pay him out next year.

He's putting pressure on us by saying he wants to train with St Kilda. Telling him 'fine go for your life, that'll be a repudiation of your contract though' is not harassment, workplace discrimination or restraint of trade, its the correct interpretation of the terms of his contract - the contract he and the AFLPA are insisting he has not breached and want upheld.

If he's got a problem with that all he can do is not back himself and sit on his arse waiting for his next MFC paycheck, that's not any of the things you have mentioned either that's just how it is, it's there plain and simple for anyone to see. The fact that he will have a lot of pressure on him and will look like a [censored] if he takes the latter option is his own doing, not the MFCs.

I don't see how letting him train with our direct competition whilst keeping his contract in place and retaining his spot on the list can be a sensible outcome. That is as soft as it gets and sets a bad example for the playing group.

The sensible outcome for any contract dealing is if you want something we need something in return, if he wants out the parties can come to a mutual agreement for that to happen, he cannot leave then come grovelling back to get his contract fulfilled because he's too [censored] to get a gig elsewhere.

  Rhino Richards said:

Correct. Its a good point.

It would be interesting to see if Carroll is training with or without approval of the MFC and AFL. If any player were to join / be invited to train with a Club there must be some arrangement for the player to be covered by that Club's insurance policy for injuries sustained during formal training.

What sort of coverage is there for players invited to try out for the squad during a summer but are not currently AFL senior or rookie players?

I very much doubt there is any - players out of contract simply are at their own risk. That's certainly the way it works in most professional sports (soccer and basketball definitely).

As for the injury issue, my understanding is that the AFL player contract year goes to October 31. So there really is nothing to lose for Melbourne letting him train until at least that point given he has a contract for 2009 anyway.

This is bad news. We had a better hope of getting rid of him before; now they'll see how [censored] he is firsthand.

In all seriousness, I can see St Kildas current policy coming back to bite them pretty hard. Going for Cousins is one thing, but if you do that I would have thought you'd want nothing but stabilising influences around him, not [censored] like Carroll. Despite this years finish (where despite finishing 4th they were never a chance) they're at a point now where they probably should rebuild, not top up the list with off-field culture sores who (in this case at least) arent even very good on-field.

  Rhino Richards said:

Whether Carroll does or does not play AFL again is now outside the remit of the MFC. Clearly MFC dont want him and he must feel similar feelings. Carroll is not hanging around the Club and is not part of the Club's training.

But they have this contract. MFC have a problem. They have a dead spot on the list and they have a contractual arrangement to fulfil It would be in MFC's interest to encourage alternative arrangements where hopefully MFC can release Carroll into the PSD and get some or all of his final year covered by another Club.

It would be extremely stupid of the Club to put any pressure on Carroll at this point. You do that and you are up for harassment, workplace discrimination and even restraint of trade issues.

The best and sensible outcome is to encourage someone else to take him. At worst we have to pay him out next year.

Correct. If another club wishes to play him a deal would be worked out as to how much we pay him and how much they pay him.

As for training it would be fair to assume that the AFL would have to cover any injury he might sustain. Therefore we are letting him try out with another club, rather than face a Court hearing over whether he breached his contract to such a degree as to allow its repudiation by us.

My guess is that if Carroll is required by another club, they will agree on his remuneration and he will then do a deal with us for some part of the balance, assuming that his existing MFC contract would be higher.

  Redleg said:

My guess is that if Carroll is required by another club, they will agree on his remuneration and he will then do a deal with us for some part of the balance, assuming that his existing MFC contract would be higher.

Considering that's what is intimated in the article, it's probably not a bad guess

  two sheds jackson said:

In all seriousness, I can see St Kildas current policy coming back to bite them pretty hard. Going for Cousins is one thing, but if you do that I would have thought you'd want nothing but stabilising influences around him, not [censored] like Carroll. Despite this years finish (where despite finishing 4th they were never a chance) they're at a point now where they probably should rebuild, not top up the list with off-field culture sores who (in this case at least) arent even very good on-field.

St Kilda need to cash in while the Riewoldt generation are at or near their peak and not past it. They are back filling to try and crack a flag. Their recruitment over the past few years good and bad highlights this.

  Kit Walker said:

So there really is nothing to lose for Melbourne letting him train until at least that point given he has a contract for 2009 anyway.

Makes sense.

Agree.

  torpedo said:

He's putting pressure on us ....elsewhere.

Carroll is in the box seat. MFC still have to pay him his 2009 salary unless there is breach of contract. Its not clear whether Carroll not training with MFC is MFC's or Carroll's. In reality its probably both.

Its in MFC interest for him to find a home elsewhere. Carroll still wants to play AFL football. Fine. St Kilda are looking at a potential back up for Hughdon. Fine. They will likely get him for low low dollars assuming MFC has a residual liability on the 2009 year.

Carroll's problems are now Carroll's problems not the Clubs. For all intensive purposes he is effectively off the list at MFC. As far as the playing group is concerned Carroll is a bad example and his exclusion would be a positive. And Carroll wont be back at MFC.

  Demons 32 said:

But now with the emergence of Garland, Warnock, Martin and of course Rivers.

He has become our 5th string defender, when he isn't playing well I don't think haha cool beard, I think can you just leave.

Even then you are giving him too much credit. Frawley was out performing him at Sandringham, that makes him 6th string.

  Rogue said:

Considering that's what is intimated in the article, it's probably not a bad guess

I am tired.

  Rhino Richards said:

Carroll is in the box seat. MFC still have to pay him his 2009 salary unless there is breach of contract.

Do you reckon Carroll hasn't breached the contract?

Of course he has. The question is not whether he breached the contract but whether the breaches he has committed are sufficiently serious as to enable the aggrieved party (i.e. the MFC) to terminate the agreement. There is an arguable case that they are and that the club would win a court battle but the AFLPA is supporting Carroll. The argy bargy taking place at the moment is happening so that the parties can arrive at an agreement that would avoid them having to pay for expensive lawyers to prove their respective cases.

  Deeman said:

Do you reckon Carroll hasn't breached the contract?

Of course he has. The question is not whether he breached the contract but whether the breaches he has committed are sufficiently serious as to enable the aggrieved party (i.e. the MFC) to terminate the agreement. There is an arguable case that they are and that the club would win a court battle but the AFLPA is supporting Carroll. The argy bargy taking place at the moment is happening so that the parties can arrive at an agreement that would avoid them having to pay for expensive lawyers to prove their respective cases.

I am not sure why so many posters are categorically claim breach of contract when none have actually seen the contract.

In particular your second sentence makes no sense. Your saying its not matter of breach of contract but whether the breaches (of what? ) are enough to allow the MFC to terminate the contract. What for?..... Breach of Contract. Gotcha.

I dont know how you can come up with an arguable case for breach of contract when you have not seen the contract.

And by the way have an "arguable case" is akin to opening the floodgates for expensive lawyers and more bad publicity. Wouldn't you also think Carroll has an "arguable case"? Ping......penny drops.

Brilliant

If there was open and shut case for terminating this contract seamlessly then dont you think the Club would have done it by now?

This issue needs to be treated carefully and managed sensitively to avoid unncessary fall out on the Club. Some of the egotistical slash and burn resolution are beyond belief.

  Quote

In any case, Carroll will not be at Melbourne next year.

That's the most significant line in the whole article. I don't care if he plays for Toolybuc. He's gorn... and good riddance.

St Kilda is fast becoming a dumping ground for every deadshit reject.

That Carroll is going to get paid next year, despite him being an embarrassment and an idiot is just ridiculous. He screwed up numerous times and now gets rewarded. You gotta love the AFL