Hey i got shot down buy a few for suggesting Newton to the rookie list, but ive heard him and Meeson will be on the rookie list next year.

If this is the case then things look ominous for Meesen's career. I would have thought Bell before Meesen.

btw where have you heard this? You're not just going by one of the other threads are you?

If this is the case then things look ominous for Meesen's career. I would have thought Bell before Meesen.

btw where have you heard this? You're not just going by one of the other threads are you?

Meesan would make a little bit of sense.

As i posted in a separate threat, I saw him down at Albert Park a few days ago. He was walking while the others were running.

He said he still hadn't recovered from stress fractures and had had a set back, meaning he has to walk for the next 2 weeks.

Now, I have no idea how long it takes to fully recover from stress fractures, however the club might not believe he will be available to play till round 10 or something, in which case dropping him to rookie list makes sense

Now, I have no idea how long it takes to fully recover from stress fractures, however the club might not believe he will be available to play till round 10 or something, in which case dropping him to rookie list makes sense

Fair enough, it pays to have all the info I suppose.

Meesan would make a little bit of sense.

As i posted in a separate threat, I saw him down at Albert Park a few days ago. He was walking while the others were running.

He said he still hadn't recovered from stress fractures and had had a set back, meaning he has to walk for the next 2 weeks.

Now, I have no idea how long it takes to fully recover from stress fractures, however the club might not believe he will be available to play till round 10 or something, in which case dropping him to rookie list makes sense

Stress fractures are awful things, when you're running around they can hit you hard and you can barely walk. Then when you think you've given it enough rest, it'll come back. I had one in my foot for about 18 months. Meesen's must be more serious than first thought.

Hey i got shot down buy a few for suggesting Newton to the rookie list, but ive heard him and Meeson will be on the rookie list next year.

Please, I implore you, explain how exactly Meesen and Newton can be demoted to the rookie list...

Can't wait to hear your explanation.

There has been a rule change where a Club can have up to two mature age rookies. They can move an experienced player to the rookie list whilst still paying out the final year of their contract.

MFC already have Hughes as a mature age rookie. There is room for one more. I reckon it would in Newton. But I am not surprised by mention of Meesen. If the rumours of his continued wretched luck with injuries continues then his slim hope of AFL is over.

Enforcer, read the other post about Mature rookies...

edit: Or rhino can post before i get there...

Edited November 9, 200915 yr by Bringbackbarassi

Please, I implore you, explain how exactly Meesen and Newton can be demoted to the rookie list...

Can't wait to hear your explanation.

Cant explain it mate, but its correct, i dont bs.

There has been a rule change where a Club can have up to two mature age rookies. They can move an experienced player to the rookie list whilst still paying out the final year of their contract.

MFC already have Hughes as a mature age rookie. There is room for one more. I reckon it would in Newton. But I am not surprised by mention of Meesen. If the rumours of his continued wretched luck with injuries continues then his slim hope of AFL is over.

Newton wouldn't be a mature age rookie would he?

...But I am not surprised by mention of Meesen. If the rumours of his continued wretched luck with injuries continues then his slim hope of AFL is over.

Meeson can be put on the long term injury list, to the same effect.

Newton just has to be hidden til his contract runs out -> mature rookie.

Ed: Newton might be too young to be "mature rookied". Go figure - he's been on our list for 5 yrs.

Edited November 9, 200915 yr by Mono

Please, I implore you, explain how exactly Meesen and Newton can be demoted to the rookie list...

Can't wait to hear your explanation.

Is a two step process (1) delist ( with a guarantee to re- rookie at the same salary) ;(ii) select in the rookie draft.

As stated in the thread on the new mature age rookie list ... its difficult to understand why both club and player would do it - but surprisingly it is possible this year for the first time

Unfortunately - with Hughes already listed as a mature-age rookie ( for some strange reason) , the move would limit ( or eliminate) our ability to rookie some fresh blood

Meeson can be put on the long term injury list, to the same effect.

I think placed as mature rookie its saying that "injury or not" we are unlikely to select you for AFL football in your final season. Fully fit, I think Meesen is a fringe AFL player at best.

Why would a contracted player agree to be moved down to the rookie list?

Why would a contracted player agree to be moved down to the rookie list?

apparently you dont need to get agreement anymore...

Why would a contracted player agree to be moved down to the rookie list?

What would you choose of these 2 scenarios?

1. Move down to the rookie list and still receive the salary owed on the last year of your contract, whilst having 1 more year to show what you have got

2. Delist, pay out said contract, and career over.

What would you choose of these 2 scenarios?

1. Move down to the rookie list and still receive the salary owed on the last year of your contract, whilst having 1 more year to show what you have got

2. Delist, pay out said contract, and career over.

You've missed an important one .... IMHO you need player acceptance when moving them to the rookie list

3. Say nothing, train hard and if the club delisted/re-rookie you ... what sort of message is that sending to the rest of the playing group or the wider AFL community.

Edited November 9, 200915 yr by hangon007

The club would not be paying out my contract. It sends a shocking message to those around the club, especially the young players, as why would you want to be at a club who does not honour my contract. So you can forget option two.

Your first point doesn't make sense either - I'm on the list already, I will still receive the salary I am owed because that is still my contract and I can still show what I have on the primary list.

I'm on the list already, I will still receive the salary I am owed because that is still my contract and I can still show what I have on the primary list.

Agree.

2 things I struggle with here - a) how can it be legally sound? b ) why would the AFLPA accept it?

Edited November 9, 200915 yr by torpedo

Agree.

2 things I struggle with here - a) how can it be legally sound? b ) why would the AFLPA accept it?

Under the terms of the contract, the club has the option of paying a player out (just as the player has the option of retiring). As the player still gets his money - there is no reason for the AFLPA to reject it

Edited November 9, 200915 yr by hoopla

Under the terms of the contract, the club has the option of paying a player out (just as the player has the option of retiring). As the player still gets his money - there is no reason for the AFLPA to reject it

Exactly, thanks Hoopla.

So therefore, both the options I put forward are sound. Option 1 would come with player acceptance, as he either does, or he accepts option 2.

Under the terms of the contract, the club has the option of paying a player out (just as the player has the option of retiring).

Really? Are you basing that on one you have read yourself?

As the player still gets his money - there is no reason for the AFLPA to reject it

It is my understanding that the AFLPA do not and never have accepted that under performing players can simply be sacked & paid out. We required their co-operation to get rid of serial drongo Nathan Carroll and MFC actually had grounds to sack him.

Really? Are you basing that on one you have read yourself?

It is my understanding that the AFLPA do not and never have accepted that under performing players can simply be sacked & paid out. We required their co-operation to get rid of serial drongo Nathan Carroll and MFC actually had grounds to sack him.

Link I found on AFL Players.org

See section 7, page 3.

http://www.aflplayers.org/documents/CBA/Ar...er_Contract.pdf

Section 7: Salary Cap Termination -

Unless a player and team specifically agree otherwise, any AFL player contract may be terminated at any time if in the team's opinion, the player is anticipated to make less of a contribution to the team's ability to compete on the playing field than any other player or players whom the team intends to sign or attempts to sign, or another player or player who is already on the team's roster, and for whom the team needs room under the salary cap. The terms of section 7 shall not affect any team's obligation to pay a player any guaranteed compensation.

Also see Section 8: Non-salary Cap termination -

If at any time, in the sole judgement of the team, a players skill or performance has been unsatisfactory as compared with that of other players competing for positions on the teams roster.......then, unless the players AFL contract deems otherwise, the team may terminate the contract.

Well it has happened, club has just announce it.

Link I found on AFL Players.org...

Interesting.

If this has always been a standard clause why is it suddenly an accepted practice to sack a player because they suck, whereas 12 months ago this was unacceptable?