4 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

The latest from the HUN below. I reckon the pies are trying it on but without written agreement how do you go about proving what was agreed? It’s the pies word against the doggies. I think it’ll be the AFL or the courts who’ll have to adjudicate.

Also, how does it work in practice? Would the doggies have a contract with Treloar for the full amount and a side agreement with the Pies for their contribution? Or just the one agreement involving the 3 parties? Could Treloars and his manager be the tie-breaker. Wouldn’t they have been privy to the negotiations?

“Figures close to the standoff say the Dogs are adamant they will not be paying Treloar a cent more than a “watertight” five-year, $600,000-a-season contract agreed with the cast-off Magpies midfielder.

It would mean Treloar is still owed $300,000 a year — or $1.5 million — under the terms of his original Magpies contract.

But Collingwood insists the Bulldogs agreed to further negotiations over who would pay what to Treloar after the trade went through, which the Bulldogs absolutely dispute.

The Dogs are confident any money owed above and beyond Treloar’s new arrangement at the Whitten Oval is simply a matter for Collingwood.

The only concession the Western Bulldogs did offer Collingwood during the frantic final days of the trade period, one figure said, was an offer to front-end some of Treloar’s wages in his new contract to assist the Magpies with management of their salary cap.

But if Collingwood’s position is right, the Bulldogs effectively agreed to a trade for Treloar without knowing how much they would pay him.

The clubs agreed to the trade one minute before the AFL exchange period deadline.

But no paperwork outlining any financial details has been lodged with the AFL by either club.”

amateur hour.    Presuming Treloar is now signed up with the Dogs with a contract stating his salary from the Dogs and nothing else, then the problem is entirely C'woods in the absence of other evidence.  Treloar then sues C'wood for the balance of his entire contract and a wise judge rules in his favour but adds " I see you have been also paid by the Dogs and there must have been some agreement about the transfer, so I'll just deduct the sum the Dogs are paying from what C'wood owes Treloar".?

If there is no agreement and the financial details have not been lodged by the due date then the trade is null and void. Treloar stays at Coll and WB keep their picks and both clubs are heavily fined by the AFL. Easy.

it is only 16 days since tradeweek finished

afl really have screwed up here

call it all off, treloar back to filth

dodoro nominated for sainthood

1 hour ago, sue said:

amateur hour.    Presuming Treloar is now signed up with the Dogs with a contract stating his salary from the Dogs and nothing else, then the problem is entirely C'woods in the absence of other evidence.  Treloar then sues C'wood for the balance of his entire contract and a wise judge rules in his favour but adds " I see you have been also paid by the Dogs and there must have been some agreement about the transfer, so I'll just deduct the sum the Dogs are paying from what C'wood owes Treloar".?

A lot of "ifs" in that, but possible.

Edited November 28, 20204 yr by Redleg

Absolutely incredible stuff. Has the potential to wreck one, or both clubs salary caps. The Pies have always looked bad in this but the dogs are looking very stupid as well, the contract should have been the first thing negotiated and terms written down. 

If one club is going down let it be Collingwood!

11 minutes ago, Pates said:

Absolutely incredible stuff. Has the potential to wreck one, or both clubs salary caps. The Pies have always looked bad in this but the dogs are looking very stupid as well, the contract should have been the first thing negotiated and terms written down. 

If one club is going down let it be Collingwood!

afl       - fail

filth    - big fail

dogs - fail

Here's a good laugh from gordon (dogs) re treloar in today's hun (partial clip below)

claims there is no deadline for agreement

claims relationships between flogs and filth are all hunky dory and very respectful - lol

Quote

Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon confident contract dispute with Collingwood over Adam Treloar will be resolved

Negotiations between the Western Bulldogs and Collingwood over Adam Treloar’s are continuing. Dogs president Peter Gordon reveals where the two clubs stand.

Rebecca Williams

December 3, 2020 - 2:49PM

News Corp Australia Sports Newsroom

Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon is confident “sensible heads will prevail” and the Adam Treloar contract dispute will be resolved – but he could not say when.

Three weeks after the trade for former Collingwood midfielder Treloar was completed, the wrangling over his salary continues between the Bulldogs and Magpies.

Gordon could not say when the contract haggling would be settled, but he was confident the two clubs could find a middle ground.

“When you have got clubs like Collingwood and the Bulldogs, we’ve got a very good relationship from the president down in each club, we understand each other’s problems … we will sort out the details with Collingwood in relation to that and we will all get on with our lives,” Gordon said on SEN.

“It’s not (resolved), but it will be because you have got two clubs that respect each other and a player that both clubs respect.

“He’s obviously already made a terrific contribution to Collingwood and we’ve got high expectations as well and a deal got done in extraordinary circumstances and sensible heads will prevail and we will do a deal … I’m sure it will be fine.”

Western Bulldogs and Collingwood are yet to agree on the terms of Adam Treloar’s salary. Picture: NCA NewsWire

Pressed on whether there was a deadline to have the stand-off resolved, Gordon said:

“(There’s) not a deadline that I’m aware of, obviously you’ve got to file contracts and other things in a timely way,” he said.

“I’m sure the AFL would understand in circumstances where it itself has struggled to get details out of TPPs and what the shift in player contracts and arrangements, including with the AFLPA and what the variable club funding model is going to be in a year when we’ve seen more tumultuous change than ever before.

“I’m sure that they appreciate the position that we’re in …. it will get sorted out.”

 

deezone, did you facepalm me or gordon?

What a joke!

Surely if the AFL have signed off on this trade, there must be details of who pays what, somewhere.

If the AFL have sanctioned this they are even more of an amateur joke than I thought.

10 hours ago, monoccular said:

Surely if the AFL have signed off on this trade, there must be details of who pays what, somewhere.

If the AFL have sanctioned this they are even more of an amateur joke than I thought.

If it was us and the dogs in this deal the AFL would have stepped in long ago. But it’s the pies, one of the untouchable clubs with too many supporters to upset. Come on Gil a little spine please. 

3 hours ago, old dee said:

If it was us and the dogs in this deal the AFL would have stepped in long ago. But it’s the pies, one of the untouchable clubs with too many supporters to upset. Come on Gil a little spine please. 

a jellyfish with spine, od?

14 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

a jellyfish with spine, od?

Some days I am more positive than others DC.

34 minutes ago, old dee said:

Some days I am more positive than others DC.

gil is a puppet on a string........and a muppet

16 hours ago, monoccular said:

Surely if the AFL have signed off on this trade, there must be details of who pays what, somewhere.

If the AFL have sanctioned this they are even more of an amateur joke than I thought.

It was published last week that while trade details were usually required within (I think) 48 hours of the trade period closing the AFL had extended the timeframe for this deal indefinitely

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

a jellyfish with spine, od?

No way Gil’s a jellyfish @daisycutter, far too transparent for the likes of him.

4 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

No way Gil’s a jellyfish @daisycutter, far too transparent for the likes of him.

what about this type of jellyfish?  ?

Nope, still too transparent ?

1 hour ago, Demon Disciple said:

Nope, still too transparent ?

hmmm....you're a hard taskmaster, dd ?

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

hmmm....you're a hard taskmaster, dd ?

Maybe I am, or maybe I am just that disenfranchised on how far backwards the game has gone under Gil’s tenure.

6 hours ago, daisycutter said:

what about this type of jellyfish?  ?

Moving beyond the translucence of said jellyfish, perhaps Gil is best depicted by the protrusion on the right, and the apparent hollow 'sack' at it's base.

Crickets. What’s going on with this deal?

You’d think someone needs to cut a monthly pay cheque for Treloar pretty soon which will be hard to do if you don’t know his salary??

On 11/28/2020 at 3:52 PM, Better days ahead said:

The latest from the HUN below. I reckon the pies are trying it on but without written agreement how do you go about proving what was agreed? It’s the pies word against the doggies. I think it’ll be the AFL or the courts who’ll have to adjudicate.

Also, how does it work in practice? Would the doggies have a contract with Treloar for the full amount and a side agreement with the Pies for their contribution? Or just the one agreement involving the 3 parties? Could Treloars and his manager be the tie-breaker. Wouldn’t they have been privy to the negotiations?

“Figures close to the standoff say the Dogs are adamant they will not be paying Treloar a cent more than a “watertight” five-year, $600,000-a-season contract agreed with the cast-off Magpies midfielder.

It would mean Treloar is still owed $300,000 a year — or $1.5 million — under the terms of his original Magpies contract.

But Collingwood insists the Bulldogs agreed to further negotiations over who would pay what to Treloar after the trade went through, which the Bulldogs absolutely dispute.

The Dogs are confident any money owed above and beyond Treloar’s new arrangement at the Whitten Oval is simply a matter for Collingwood.

The only concession the Western Bulldogs did offer Collingwood during the frantic final days of the trade period, one figure said, was an offer to front-end some of Treloar’s wages in his new contract to assist the Magpies with management of their salary cap.

But if Collingwood’s position is right, the Bulldogs effectively agreed to a trade for Treloar without knowing how much they would pay him.

The clubs agreed to the trade one minute before the AFL exchange period deadline.

But no paperwork outlining any financial details has been lodged with the AFL by either club.”

Sick eggs dogs, Collingwood has done them over, no paperwork was lodged about financials, Collingwood should stick to there guns, the dog had to trade Dunkley it fit Adam in, but no they wanted to have their cake and eat it to. 

PS the saying you can't have your cake and eat it too, means once you eat your cake you no longer have it. I always wondered about that saying it made no sense, until I looked up the meaning of the saying.

On 12/5/2020 at 12:08 AM, monoccular said:

Surely if the AFL have signed off on this trade, there must be details of who pays what, somewhere.

If the AFL have sanctioned this they are even more of an amateur joke than I thought.

AFL: "C'mon guys, get this deal over with. It's been days and days."

Eddie: "YOU'RE THE ONES WHO TOLD US WE WERE OVER AND TO CUT PLAYERS PRONTO OR ELSE. THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT!"

AFL: *sigh* "Oh all right ... another week and that's it."

Eddie: "YOU'VE CREATED THIS DISASTER. AND NOW YOU'RE MAKING THE GREAT COLLINGWOOD FOOTBALL CLUB LOOK STUPID. WHICH MEANS YOU'RE MAKING ME LOOK STUPID.  HOW DARE YOU. OH, THAT'S IT ... I'M GETTING ON MMM TO TEAR STRIPS OFF YOU. AND EVERY QUESTION ON MILLIONAIRE WILL BE ABOUT YOU GIL."

AFL: *deep sigh* "Have it your way. come back to us when it's signed off."

 

41 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

PS the saying you can't have your cake and eat it too, means once you eat your cake you no longer have it. I always wondered about that saying it made no sense, until I looked up the meaning of the saying.

The saying should be "You can't eat your cake and still have it." Future language historians will condemn us for our shameful lack of clarity on this.

Edited December 5, 20204 yr by Mazer Rackham

17 hours ago, daisycutter said:

what about this type of jellyfish?  ?

Yes, @daisycutter, looks right...the one that's attracted to nocturnal half-time Grand Final entertainment.