Angus Brayshaw Forced into Retirement

[Sir Why You Little 35,320]

23 minutes ago, DeeZone said:

I am very interested to see how our club reacts to this idiotic decision, hell we expect to pay Gus in full but not from our player payments like having one hand tied behind your back. In that case Collingwood should have to share our burden.!!!

Yes, i am not a Lawyer, but there would be many ways to instigate this, if the Club is inclined. 
Because as it stands I would only be giving out 3 year contracts from today onwards. It’s just too dangerous for the Club, because you cannot front end all player contracts 

[The heart beats true 16,643]

I’m not an expert, but I would imagine the AFL doesn’t have control how clubs allocate salary cap per season. So realistically it’s in our best interest to move Gus’ money forward as much as possible. 

I think what they are trying to do is be fair to clubs immediately impacted, but also make sure clubs make realistic offers to players with concussion history.

This is where it starts to get really interesting, because now concussion will start to severely impact a players earning capability, and job security. The players have double the incentive to limit concussion, so the legal exposure to the AFL grows if they don’t change the game to protect their assets.

I imagine more and more rule changes are coming.

[roy11 3,140]

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1153888/club-tpp-relief-due-to-a-player-retiring-from-concussion

That's the official wording,

 

Can someone explain point 1 to me in respect to Gus.

 

TPP Relief for AFL players

In summary, for AFL players there are two features of the TPP relief provided for in the Guidelines:

1. The ability to amortise the negotiated financial settlement with the player over the period of Standard Playing Contract in alignment with the contracted payment terms.

2. Maximum thresholds of TPP relief in the three years following the year of retirement:

• In the year immediately following the year of the retirement (Year 1) - Max Threshold: 90%

• In the second year following the year of the retirement (Year 2), Year 2 Max Threshold: 75%

• In the third year following the year of the retirement (Year 3), Year 3 Max Threshold: 50%

No relief will generally be provided with regards to TPP commitments that extend four years or longer following the year of retirement. Clubs should ensure that this is appropriately factored into the risk assessment processes undertaken for player contracts that extend over four years.

The Guidelines are only applicable in the specific circumstance of retirement occurring subject to a recommendation being made by the AFL Concussion Panel. Retirements due to other injuries, or decisions made unilaterally by the Player or the Club, will be subject to existing TPP assessment rules.

The Guidelines do not provide a guarantee of TPP relief being provided with regards to any specific concussion-related retirement event.

The provision of TPP relief is at the complete discretion of the Concussion TPP Committee with consideration given to the terms of the relevant contract and the circumstances of each eligible retirement, and subject to the maximum thresholds approved.

 

 

Also this lined irked me

• Clubs should ensure that this is appropriately factored into the risk assessment processes undertaken for player contracts that extend over four years.

Yeh lets build a time machine and go back to contract negotiations cos the rule wasn't around when then, ya pelicans

 

[Superunknown 3,632]

Jesus this league, it’s clown shoes stuff and we’re being blamed

Roffey and pert should be all over this including the media.

 

[Gunna’s 1,952]

Would I be right in thinking that Gus’ first year is next year because he was medically retired after list lodgement day?

[whatwhat say what 20,302]

2 hours ago, roy11 said:

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1153888/club-tpp-relief-due-to-a-player-retiring-from-concussion

That's the official wording,

 

Can someone explain point 1 to me in respect to Gus.

 

TPP Relief for AFL players

In summary, for AFL players there are two features of the TPP relief provided for in the Guidelines:

1. The ability to amortise the negotiated financial settlement with the player over the period of Standard Playing Contract in alignment with the contracted payment terms.

2. Maximum thresholds of TPP relief in the three years following the year of retirement:

• In the year immediately following the year of the retirement (Year 1) - Max Threshold: 90%

• In the second year following the year of the retirement (Year 2), Year 2 Max Threshold: 75%

• In the third year following the year of the retirement (Year 3), Year 3 Max Threshold: 50%

No relief will generally be provided with regards to TPP commitments that extend four years or longer following the year of retirement. Clubs should ensure that this is appropriately factored into the risk assessment processes undertaken for player contracts that extend over four years.

The Guidelines are only applicable in the specific circumstance of retirement occurring subject to a recommendation being made by the AFL Concussion Panel. Retirements due to other injuries, or decisions made unilaterally by the Player or the Club, will be subject to existing TPP assessment rules.

The Guidelines do not provide a guarantee of TPP relief being provided with regards to any specific concussion-related retirement event.

The provision of TPP relief is at the complete discretion of the Concussion TPP Committee with consideration given to the terms of the relevant contract and the circumstances of each eligible retirement, and subject to the maximum thresholds approved.

 

 

Also this lined irked me

• Clubs should ensure that this is appropriately factored into the risk assessment processes undertaken for player contracts that extend over four years.

Yeh lets build a time machine and go back to contract negotiations cos the rule wasn't around when then, ya pelicans

 

this bit:

In the year immediately following the year of the retirement (Year 1)

will be interesting to understand whether or not that's 2024 for gus, or 2025 for gus - the wording is so opaque that it's completely unclear

from my reading of it, if we were able to put all of gus' salary for the length of his contract, the MOST we could absorb in one year is 90%

so, for instance, if the remaining four years of deal was worth $2.8m (an average of $700k per annum) the most we could absorb in the arbitrary year 1 (2024? 2025?) would be $2.52m

now, of course, that's completely unrealistic

in short, yr incentivised to absorb as much as possible of it in year 1 post the forced retirement

but...to be honest, you'd need a financial lawyer to poke the holes in this - it's clear as mud for joe public

all i can say is STUFF THE AFL

imo that the ENTIRE contract isn't voided from salary cap considerations is a complete farce

they've retired him ffs - perhaps he wanted to play on, risk or no risk?

this bit is so mealy-mouthed and filled with legalise:

The Guidelines do not provide a guarantee of TPP relief being provided with regards to any specific concussion-related retirement event.

The provision of TPP relief is at the complete discretion of the Concussion TPP Committee with consideration given to the terms of the relevant contract and the circumstances of each eligible retirement, and subject to the maximum thresholds approved.

is as confusing as all get out

so...the 90% etc. is dependent on the concussion tpp committee? and who sits on that? and when do they make judgement?

clear

as

MUD

[Sir Why You Little 35,320]

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

this bit:

In the year immediately following the year of the retirement (Year 1)

will be interesting to understand whether or not that's 2024 for gus, or 2025 for gus - the wording is so opaque that it's completely unclear

from my reading of it, if we were able to put all of gus' salary for the length of his contract, the MOST we could absorb in one year is 90%

so, for instance, if the remaining four years of deal was worth $2.8m (an average of $700k per annum) the most we could absorb in the arbitrary year 1 (2024? 2025?) would be $2.52m

now, of course, that's completely unrealistic

in short, yr incentivised to absorb as much as possible of it in year 1 post the forced retirement

but...to be honest, you'd need a financial lawyer to poke the holes in this - it's clear as mud for joe public

all i can say is STUFF THE AFL

imo that the ENTIRE contract isn't voided from salary cap considerations is a complete farce

they've retired him ffs - perhaps he wanted to play on, risk or no risk?

this bit is so mealy-mouthed and filled with legalise:

The Guidelines do not provide a guarantee of TPP relief being provided with regards to any specific concussion-related retirement event.

The provision of TPP relief is at the complete discretion of the Concussion TPP Committee with consideration given to the terms of the relevant contract and the circumstances of each eligible retirement, and subject to the maximum thresholds approved.

is as confusing as all get out

so...the 90% etc. is dependent on the concussion tpp committee? and who sits on that? and when do they make judgement?

clear

as

MUD

Sounds like a good lawyer could take this apart, line by line…

[Kent 2,673]

5 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Sounds like a good lawyer could take this apart, line by line…

In deed Sir

Look at a case where god forbid a club loses  5 players on medical grounds they are all on 4 year contracts of 1000000

How does the AFL expect the club to pay for the replacements

We will be short for 3 years covering Gus  The AFL should have an insurance cover to pay directly for players that they have retired The club shouldn't have to pay

This looks like it has been made up on the run Certainly isn't correct on equity grounds

Bring on the lawyers I say

 

[Dee Viney Intervention 1,599]

Restraint of trade pure and simple. Will limit our ability to pick up players via free agency and re- sign current players. I Would threaten legal action, but FFS keep Adrian Anderson away!!!!! 

[Dr. Gonzo 22,786]

Amateur Football League

Absolute Farce League

What a joke, policy on the run and once again we get shafted by it.

I'm assuming the clubs response will be crickets but I'll see what comes out. Won't hold my breath though.

[Kent 2,673]

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Amateur Football League

Absolute Farce League

What a joke, policy on the run and once again we get shafted by it.

I'm assuming the clubs response will be crickets but I'll see what comes out. Won't hold my breath though.

So where is Kate now?

[DeeZone 8,138]

Agree Dr Gonzo, it’s probably too early for a club response but I am starting to feel like we are sailing in ever diminishing circles. We need a strong response from the club where is Kate and Gary.???

[whatwhat say what 20,302]

12 minutes ago, DeeZone said:

Agree Dr Gonzo, it’s probably too early for a club response but I am starting to feel like we are sailing in ever diminishing circles. We need a strong response from the club where is Kate and Gary.???

as if they have any say on this

the afl is making it up as they go along to try and minimise future litigation

as usual the clubs wouldn't be consulted

what do people actually expect roffey or pert to do? throw the toys out of the cot screaming 'it's not fair?!??' until they've tired themselves out?

[DeeZone 8,138]

No I want a response, we are heading off course, I want to hear someone say Gee it’s better than nothing but we could have come up with a much better alternative if all clubs had been involved, rather than AFL sailing by the seats of their pants. I want them to have a scrap, show our colours, ask unsigned members to get on board. DO.!!!

[whatwhat say what 20,302]

7 minutes ago, DeeZone said:

No I want a response, we are heading off course, I want to hear someone say Gee it’s better than nothing but we could have come up with a much better alternative if all clubs had been involved, rather than AFL sailing by the seats of their pants. I want them to have a scrap, show our colours, ask unsigned members to get on board. DO.!!!

bluster and blarney achieves nothing

every club is is the same boat with this ruling; you get what you get and you don't get upset!

well, actually, you do get upset, but you seethe inwardly - or on message boards like demonland! - because making public statements criticising head office achieves sweet fanny adams and is more likely to get your club put in the naughty corner, aka sundays at 4.40pm vs interstate sides

Edited June 18 by whatwhat say what

[Roger Mellie 3,654]

44 minutes ago, DeeZone said:

Agree Dr Gonzo, it’s probably too early for a club response but I am starting to feel like we are sailing in ever diminishing circles. We need a strong response from the club where is Kate and Gary.???

Probably trying to make sense of it, which might not be realistic!

[Kent 2,673]

2 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

as if they have any say on this

the afl is making it up as they go along to try and minimise future litigation

as usual the clubs wouldn't be consulted

what do people actually expect roffey or pert to do? throw the toys out of the cot screaming 'it's not fair?!??' until they've tired themselves out?

YES !

[ChaserJ 4,087]

@whatwhat say what the wording makes me think that 2025 onward for Brayshaw (with 2024 being the year of his retirement where I’m guessing the full 100% is outside of TPP).

Every club on notice as far as the risk of long terms deals for players with any concussion history goes.

Edited June 18 by ChaserJ

[whatwhat say what 20,302]

17 minutes ago, ChaserJ said:

@whatwhat say what the wording makes me think that 2025 onward for Brayshaw (with 2024 being the year of his retirement where I’m guessing the full 100% is outside of TPP).

Every club on notice as far as the risk of long terms deals for players with any concussion history.

yeah that could be right

but who knows - the wording of the press release is...vague

[DubDee 21,899]

So we could have around $650 free in the cap next year to sign someone. this in addition to retirements 

land a big fish please!

[Dr. Gonzo 22,786]

11 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

as if they have any say on this

the afl is making it up as they go along to try and minimise future litigation

as usual the clubs wouldn't be consulted

what do people actually expect roffey or pert to do? throw the toys out of the cot screaming 'it's not fair?!??' until they've tired themselves out?

Yes. Other clubs use the media to do their dirty work and fight the AFL using public sentiment. The more you roll over and cop it the more you will continue to cop.

Edited June 18 by Dr. Gonzo

[layzie 30,247]

That's bizarre. Shouldn't be coming out of the cap.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,786]

30 minutes ago, layzie said:

That's bizarre. Shouldn't be coming out of the cap.

Of course it bloody shouldn't, what an absolute farce of a decision. Can add it to the pile of AFL "decisions" that our club has been on the wrong end of.