Interesting fact about Luke Ball is that his contract expires after the National draft. Therefore, if St. Kilda don't delist him before the next two list lodgment dates he is not able to nominate for the national draft, thus forcing him into teh PSD if he can't come to terms with the Saints. This may work out well for the Dee's if the Saints keep thinking that they are a chance to sign him or they decide they prefer him to play for Melbourne and not the pies or lions etc

I don't think he'll nominate, but I'm curious where people would put him.

Also, would you trade our PSD 1 pick for the National Draft pick that you think he would attract?

I think Carlton could very well use their first pick (12) to add to their midfield depth of quality, as long as they had the salary cap room since Fev has gone.

I think Carlton could very well use their first pick (12) to add to their midfield depth of quality, as long as they had the salary cap room since Fev has gone.

After virtually using pick 11 on McLean? Won't happen in a month of Sundays.

Umm..how exactly is 'paying out ' a contract not honouring it ?? Is IS honouring it!!. Not paying it is dishonouring it surely !!

You're kidding me, right?

And even if you are not, 2 question marks, and 4 exclamation marks?

It is a contract. When Richmond got rid of Wallace and paid him out - was that 'honouring' his contract?

I think Carlton could very well use their first pick (12) to add to their midfield depth of quality, as long as they had the salary cap room since Fev has gone.

Can't see Ball & Mclean in the same side when home games are played at the airport. Wouldn't be great team balance.

The longer this plays out the better our chances are of snaring him.

After virtually using pick 11 on McLean? Won't happen in a month of Sundays.

Can't see Ball & Mclean in the same side when home games are played at the airport. Wouldn't be great team balance.

The longer this plays out the better our chances are of snaring him.

I know the populist thinking, & mine previously, has been Carlton will go for a key position player with their first pick, but if a player like Martin were to be still available at Carltons pick, who do you think they'd take,(Martin or the tall)? In that scenario, I think they'd take the better footballer.

So I don't think at pick 12, there'd be a better footballer than Ball.

Also he's the right age for the Blues & brings a maturity & Leadership to aid that teams young talent. He seems to me to suit their immediate needs to fit their midfield rotations & to fast-track their climb toward the top 4.

Edited October 22, 200916 yr by dee-luded

when does Ball get back from his overseas holiday?

he was going away for two weeks? it's two weeks this weekend?

when does Ball get back from his overseas holiday?

he was going away for two weeks? it's two weeks this weekend?

I think it is more important to know these dates:

Fri Oct 30, 2pm – List Lodgement One. Rookie promotion to Primary List, Retained Second Year Rookies, Retained Third Year International Rookies, Retained Third Year Non-Registered Rookies.

Tue Nov 10, 2pm – Out of Contract Listed AFL Primary List Players Draft Nomination Deadline.Fri

Nov 13, 2pm – List Lodgement Two.

Wed Nov 18, 2pm – Delisted Primary List Player Draft Nomination Deadline. (not sure what the difference between out of contract and delisted is in this case)

Thur Nov 26, 6.30pm - 2009 NAB AFL Draft

I think it will be sorted out by next friday's list lodgement. So we'll know in a week. Or if we still havn't heard anything by 13th of Nov we can assume he'll be playing for us.

You're kidding me, right?

And even if you are not, 2 question marks, and 4 exclamation marks?

It is a contract. When Richmond got rid of Wallace and paid him out - was that 'honouring' his contract?

come back when your lucid..

You have no idea of what contracts are do you...

In essence.. A do X for B, paid Y..if B doesnt want A you it still pay A out the money..its that simple.

is that beyond you ?.. dont get precious re symbols mate..

Re Wallace...stupid example really as he failed to deliver.. .. so if youre going down the dicey road of ambiguous meanig for 'honouring " then he didnt either..it makes it all moot.

Contracts by their nature are cut and dried. If one side wants out it has to compensate...that's in contract parlance ( not your emotive rubbish ) the meaning of honouring.

Edited October 22, 200916 yr by belzebub59

come back when your lucid..

You have no idea of what contracts are do you...

In essence.. A do X for B, paid Y..if B doesnt want A you it still pay A out the money..its that simple.

is that beyond you ?.. dont get precious re symbols mate..

Re Wallace...stupid example really as he failed to deliver.. .. so if youre going down the dicey road of ambiguous meanig for 'honouring " then he didnt either..it makes it all moot.

Contracts by their nature are cut and dried. If one side wants out it has to compensate...that's in contract parlance ( not your emotive rubbish ) the meaning of honouring.

I think in terms of AFL players the phrase 'honouring a contract' takes on extra meaning, that being of seeing a contract through to its completion as originally intended.

Buying out of contracts is not good practice and doesn't really work in the favour of either the club or the player except for in extremely special circumstances.

These are not special circumstances. It is merely a routine circumstance of a club trying to find room on its list.

To buy out contracts now just to squeeze in another draft pick would cause untold damage to the club, even if some don't realise it.

Re Wallace...stupid example really as he failed to deliver.. .. so if youre going down the dicey road of ambiguous meanig for 'honouring " then he didnt either..it makes it all moot.

Contracts by their nature are cut and dried. If one side wants out it has to compensate...that's in contract parlance ( not your emotive rubbish ) the meaning of honouring.

I dont think it is. And I think you have a potted understanding of contracts to suit your own point of view.

When a Club contracts a player they do so on the basis that the player provides services to that Club for a fee for an agreed period. During that period the player agrees to exclusively provide those services in accordance with the contract for the period. Both parties are given surety of exchange of contractual benefits for the agreed period of time.

Its not just a matter of the Club determining that it no longer wants the player and here's your cheque. A contract should be a two way commitment that if both parties are honouring their terms then it should go its full time.

A club that decides that a player does not fulfil its needs and cuts them pre maturely does little to engage themselves pro actively with current players and their managers. And if they are so ruthless on players then its likely when contracts are coming up for renewal that managers may be seeking alternatives that gives their client a gneiune opportunity of having the contracted time to achieve what they want in AFL.

A Club that habitually closes out contracts early does itself few favours amongst players and their managers in the contract negotiation stakes. And in any contract the perception of a lack of goodwill by either party makes a contract, difficult to negotiate and often at less than an optimal outcome for both parties.

Contracts are based upon mutually agreed terms within a framework.Some frameworks are preconstructed and others arent. All work within the resepective rights under law except where inapplicable or waived . It doesnt actually get any harder than that. You can make it seem so..but it isnt.

You are going off on a tangent in regards implied damages and perceptions. Real damages are areas for compensations, monied or otherwise.

Honouring a contract is where a party either fulfills or compensates. Again...dont try and flower it up, its not warranted. Contracts of course cease the moment both parties agree to end them, if one doesnt ..then they seek compensation.

.

There are no if, buts and maybes in legal documents..there are clauses and conditions within.

The issue of any percieved moral aspects regarding contracts in the nature of goodwill and such are just that, they are exterior to the agreements.

If a club wants to pay out a player it can do just that. The issue of proprietary or common sense and any other flow on in these regards is another issue..has nothing to do with the contract per se.

Interesting fact about Luke Ball is that his contract expires after the National draft. Therefore, if St. Kilda don't delist him before the next two list lodgment dates he is not able to nominate for the national draft, thus forcing him into teh PSD if he can't come to terms with the Saints. This may work out well for the Dee's if the Saints keep thinking that they are a chance to sign him or they decide they prefer him to play for Melbourne and not the pies or lions etc

Only thing interesting about that is it is completely incorrect. All contracts expire on 31 October prior to the ND.

Rhino is right about AFL player contracts - the $s and the term are both important to the player. The player expects to get an opportunity to be an AFL footballer for the term and that's very important, it's not just about paying out the $s. This is a bit different from other employment contracts where you may be happy to take the pay-out and move on to another job. That scenario may not be on offer in the AFL and the player wants and deserves every opportunity to establish himself.

Sure Bub, by the letter of the cotract it can be terminated early and paid out (maybe there should be some extra compensation written in for this to protect players) - companies can do all sorts of things within the letter of their contract (e.g. "other duties as directed from time to tume") and some of them may earn the company a poor reputation in the marketplace and make it more difficult for them to attract quality employees.

Edited October 23, 200916 yr by old55

AFL contracts would have to be by their nature bilateral. Expectations and conditions both ways. Cessation clauses pertinent to both parties would be outlined in such cases as either party wishes out and reason for which it could be enacted. The numbers would already be established as part of the offer and acceptance.

Again.. contracts can be paid out..it will all be their in print.

Technically you're correct in some areas.

But you conveniently ignore the concepts of IR and best practice.

Take a wholistic approach to the argument.

I'm afraid if you were in charge of MFC's list management you would run the club into the ground with this attitude.

AFL contracts would have to be by their nature bilateral. Expectations and conditions both ways. Cessation clauses pertinent to both parties would be outlined in such cases as either party wishes out and reason for which it could be enacted. The numbers would already be established as part of the offer and acceptance.

Again.. contracts can be paid out..it will all be their in print.

You may pay out the money owed for that contract, but you ignore the impact upon that player's future earnings.

Managers would seek further assurances from you and better compensation for their clients as you'd be seen as more likely to pay-out contracts in the future.

Contracts are based upon mutually agreed terms within a framework.Some frameworks are preconstructed and others arent. All work within the resepective rights under law except where inapplicable or waived . It doesnt actually get any harder than that. You can make it seem so..but it isnt.

You are going off on a tangent in regards implied damages and perceptions. Real damages are areas for compensations, monied or otherwise.

Honouring a contract is where a party either fulfills or compensates. Again...dont try and flower it up, its not warranted. Contracts of course cease the moment both parties agree to end them, if one doesnt ..then they seek compensation.

.

There are no if, buts and maybes in legal documents..there are clauses and conditions within.

The issue of any percieved moral aspects regarding contracts in the nature of goodwill and such are just that, they are exterior to the agreements.

If a club wants to pay out a player it can do just that. The issue of proprietary or common sense and any other flow on in these regards is another issue..has nothing to do with the contract per se.

The issue is that a Club that pays out contracts prematurely where there are not special extenuating circumstances risks blackening the relationships on which such contracts are formalised.

The Club can normally pay out a contract early. However it is a variation of the original contract terms The other party may not wish to terminate the contract that limits his AFL opportunities at that time. His only real remedy is to accept the money. But its clearly a denial of the opportunities provided to the player under the original contract. And in doing so the Club is at a risk of compromising its position in future negotiations with current and future players.

come back when your lucid..

You have no idea of what contracts are do you...

In essence.. A do X for B, paid Y..if B doesnt want A you it still pay A out the money..its that simple.

is that beyond you ?.. dont get precious re symbols mate..

Re Wallace...stupid example really as he failed to deliver.. .. so if youre going down the dicey road of ambiguous meanig for 'honouring " then he didnt either..it makes it all moot.

Contracts by their nature are cut and dried. If one side wants out it has to compensate...that's in contract parlance ( not your emotive rubbish ) the meaning of honouring.

As the discussion has already moved past this point, I will only say one thing - why the passive aggressiveness?

AFL contracts would have to be by their nature bilateral. Expectations and conditions both ways. Cessation clauses pertinent to both parties would be outlined in such cases as either party wishes out and reason for which it could be enacted. The numbers would already be established as part of the offer and acceptance.

Again.. contracts can be paid out..it will all be their in print.

You are assuming such a condition is a standard in a contract. And you clearly dont know the terms of an AFL contract. What you are putting forward is not bilateral but one sided in favor of the Clubs. In AFL we dont have player free agency and players do not have the right to close contracts early. As a consequence, neither the Clubs have that contractual option either. In the situation of Carroll, you are agreement is strick that replaces the old agreement and effectively pays the player out.

Heard a whisper.

Don't get your hopes up for Luke Ball.

Heard a whisper.

Don't get your hopes up for Luke Ball.

St Kilda coax him back?

Heard a whisper.

Don't get your hopes up for Luke Ball.

please explain

Heard a whisper.

Don't get your hopes up for Luke Ball.

Never had high hopes for him in the first place but given he is the most highly credentialled player apparently available ATM it was always going to be worth the club having a crack at him although he has never been a cut and dried candidate because of question marks about his fitness.

The last thing we want to introduce into a young emerging side is a highly paid, unfit coodabeen who can't perform. The club went down the Kelvin Templeton path 25 years ago and I hope we've learned from the experience.

Heard a whisper.

Don't get your hopes up for Luke Ball.

Not surprising what so ever. Impossible to pick up a high profile player when you've got a 12-54 record over 3 years.

So who do we now set our focus on:

Joel McDonald

Jesse Smith

Scott Harding

Daniel Harris (handy replacement for McLean)

I'd happily take any of the above players over an 18 year old who was ignored in a weak draft. There will be no Liam Jurrah fairy tales this year folks!

Edited October 23, 200916 yr by Bring-Back-Powell

Not surprising what so ever. Impossible to pick up a high profile player when you've got a 12-54 record over 3 years.

So who do we now set our focus on:

Joel McDonald

Jesse Smith

Scott Harding

Daniel Harris (handy replacement for McLean)

I'd happily take any of the above players over an 18 year old who was ignored in a weak draft. There will be no Liam Jurrah fairy tales this year folks!

I don't want any of those players at the expense of a kid.

But who are we going to pay $500K to make up the cap?