Dees settle with carroll

Looks the battle with Carroll is over, all settled now, don't think will be playing in AFL next year but best of luck in the future regardless.

good to see....

"Instead, both parties agreed on a sum that saw them part ways amicably"

Hope he can find a new home!

Read that today... seems delisting Carroll is a gutsy move that could have backfired a little had he been picked up. The club could have been vulnerable to a bit of criticism for how they handled it... But in the end we have Bail and Jetta instead of Carroll and CJ, who were both negative influences, it has become clear. Plenty to be happy with as a supporter, member, fan, sponsor etc etc

Read that today... seems delisting Carroll is a gutsy move that could have backfired a little had he been picked up. The club could have been vulnerable to a bit of criticism for how they handled it... But in the end we have Bail and Jetta instead of Carroll and CJ, who were both negative influences, it has become clear. Plenty to be happy with as a supporter, member, fan, sponsor etc etc

I am not sure delisting Carroll was either a gutsy move or at risk of back firing. He was a fringe player with numerous off field behavioural breaches and offences. It was a great move and sent a message about the culture expected at MFC. MFC would have had more criticism had they kept him and brushed over the coals. If some other Club had picked him so be it. He's a 28yo limited fringe AFL player with problems. I am not sure how much another Club would have got as a positive picking him up.

CJ was not a negative influence at the Club. He was another fringe player who sort his future elsewhere. Fair enough.

I am sure you will agree at the end of the today the exits are both positives not only because of culture but it allows MFC to recruit two younger players who we believe have a better prospect of playing AFL footy at a capable and successful level.

I'd say it wasn't really gutsy because it was both necessary and probably warranted.

He must have breached his contract otherwise we simply would have been forced to pay it out in full wouldn't we? Lawyers?

I'd say it wasn't really gutsy because it was both necessary and probably warranted.

He must have breached his contract otherwise we simply would have been forced to pay it out in full wouldn't we? Lawyers?

I imagine Carroll and Melb FC had different views as to whether the contract was breached. Neither of them wanted to head to court for an answer, hence the settlement.

But if Carroll thought he hadn't breeched it, why would he settle for less than his full 2009 salary?

But if Carroll thought he hadn't breeched it, why would he settle for less than his full 2009 salary?

I think there are a few factors you would consider if you were in his shoes.

'A bird in hand....', as they say. Even if Carroll felt he hadn't breached contract, he may not have been sure. He may have felt that despite being in the right, there was some risk.

There's also the impact of a court case - perhaps not just financial considerations (I'm not sure if he'd pay fees or the AFLPA) but also personal. Whether or not he'd breached the contract I doubt whatever happened would look good splashed across the papers.

Melbourne didn't want him so it's unlikely he'd play AFL-level footy in 2009. That would probably finish his career. Another year older and with a year out of the game he'd be close to zero chance of being picked up somewhere else.

It seemed a chance St. Kilda would pick him up in this year's draft, so ending the contract with Melbourne would allow him to pursue other opportunities.

I think there are a few factors you would consider if you were in his shoes.

'A bird in hand....', as they say. Even if Carroll felt he hadn't breached contract, he may not have been sure. He may have felt that despite being in the right, there was some risk.

There's also the impact of a court case - perhaps not just financial considerations (I'm not sure if he'd pay fees of the AFLPA) but also personal. Whether or not he'd breached the contract I doubt whatever happened would look good splashed across the papers.

Melbourne didn't want him so it's unlikely he'd play AFL-level footy in 2009. That would probably finish his career. Another year older and with a year out of the game he'd be close to zero chance of being picked up somewhere else.

It seemed a chance St. Kilda would pick him up in this year's draft, so ending the contract with Melbourne would allow him to pursue other opportunities.

Spot on Rogue.

I understand that, and it probably it absolutely correct.

But nonetheless it strikes me as odd that he, and the AFLPA, would allow a settlement for less than his contract outlines.

In the end, that's why these contracts are there. Otherwise we could just say to Meesen pre-PSD "John, we're not going to play you in the next two years, so you may as well leave our club. It's OK, we'll pay you less than you'd have earnt."

I guess I just wonder how they figured out the the dollar amount his indiscretions took from his conract, and what the ultimate payout was in comparison to his contract

In the end, that's why these contracts are there. Otherwise we could just say to Meesen pre-PSD "John, we're not going to play you in the next two years, so you may as well leave our club. It's OK, we'll pay you less than you'd have earnt."

Sure, but there aren't the same factors at play. In example -

There's little risk of the player losing in these circumstances, should it go to court. In the Carroll case, there may have been some argument that the player had breached his contract through his indiscretions.

There's also nothing that the player might find embarassing or damaging to his reputation in these circumstances (I'm sure he'd already cop the 'you hack' comments). In the Carroll case, he may have been keen to keep revelations about indiscretions out of the public domain.

Ofc, there's also the possibility that despite thinking we were in the right, we didn't want to go through the hassle of Court either.

I guess I just wonder how they figured out the the dollar amount his indiscretions took from his conract, and what the ultimate payout was in comparison to his contract

Yeah, this would be interesting. I wonder if we'll find out.

Unlike Meesen who only performs poorly on the ground, there is enough circumstantial evidence against Carroll for his off field activities that would make his claim of discrimination/ breach of contract hard to justify. In addition, if he did initiate court action there is no certainty where liability for legal costs fall. So if he is contracted to receive X and is offered Y to terminate the contract then he needs to assess whether the contingent risk of legal fees, hassle, stress, time etc is worth chasing X-Y.

In this case, the sensible outcome was taken. X-Y would have to be a considerable amount to justify going down the legal path and end at the day Carroll was on respectable but not uber contract payments.

Absolutely.

I just wonder exactly how much his indiscretions cost him/saved our club. It must have been more than circumstantial evidence to warrant him getting paid less than what he was owed.

Not to mention the AFL obviously supported it, even though they hate us spending even a cent over bare minimum costs.

But if Carroll thought he hadn't breeched it, why would he settle for less than his full 2009 salary?

My girlfriend used to work with Carroll's girlfriend and said he was absolutely devastated at all the stuff that had happened, and all the issues that came from his actions. However from what I understand he was fully expecting to be on the list for the Dees and playing in 2009.

There was definitely some emotional attachment to the club, and perhaps this was one of the contributing factors as to why he settled?

Absolutely.

I just wonder exactly how much his indiscretions cost him/saved our club. It must have been more than circumstantial evidence to warrant him getting paid less than what he was owed.

Not to mention the AFL obviously supported it, even though they hate us spending even a cent over bare minimum costs.

Its not the weight of circumstantial evidence but more the weight of the potential legal costs on either or both parties.

In a blunt example, if you owe someone $100 you can offer them $90 to cover the situation and say sue me for the rest. If the cost of litigation is more than $10 would you bother.

In the MFC, it is clear both parties believe they have a substantive case so any litigation is uncertain in outcome and more than likely expensive. Neither party wanted to go down that fruitless path! Common sense prevails.