7 hours ago, gs77 said:

Taj was out with concussion.

Well I certainly hope Taj doesn't take Gus's role in that way.

No compensation is required other than making sure we dont have to pay him out for the next 4 years. Assume common sense will prevail with that one tho

Richo said we won’t be asking the AFL for a pick now. Apparently content with our position of 2 players down.

7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Richo said we won’t be asking the AFL for a pick now. Apparently content with our position of 2 players down.

Content?  Sounds too much like the "Black Knight's" behaviour to me.

31 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Richo said we won’t be asking the AFL for a pick now. Apparently content with our position of 2 players down.

Well we don't deserve one for JS. 

29 minutes ago, biggestred said:

Well we don't deserve one for JS. 

Do we deserve one for Gus, given the AFL medically retired him, 3 days after the Supp pick time ended?

A pick 3 Premiership player, who has finished top 5 in the B& F last 2 years.

Edited February 24, 20241 yr by Redleg

15 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Do we deserve one for Gus, given the AFL medically retired him, 3 days after the Supp pick time ended?

A pick 3 Premiership player, who has finished top 5 in the B& F last 2 years.

I think we absolutely do. We won't get a thing though. 

On 22/02/2024 at 12:50, kev martin said:

Difficult to replace a  player like Gus. He offered much more to the club than just his on-field skills.

His family was also heavily involved in the club, billeting the young players, and I assume always around the club.

Really hope they keep him around the club

BRAYSHAW UNCERTAINTY

The AFL is expected to have discussions with Melbourne about the salary cap implications of Angus Brayshaw’s retirement given he has five more seasons left on his contract.

The league medically retired Brayshaw and while the Demons spent Thursday farewelling their premiership star, his position will clearly set a precedent for all clubs.

Brayshaw could agree to accept a smaller figure on a contract of between $700,000-$800,000 as part of an agreement with the club or the AFL could grant the Demons some cap relief.

Rival list bosses agreed there was no set protocol for medical retirements given most players to retire recently including Marcus Adams, Paul Seedsman and Paddy McCartin did not have long-term deals.

The AFL’s intervention into Brayshaw’s career will give the Demons the best chance of reducing the cap implications of his deal until 2028.

Mid-season Supplementary player period? Or whatever it is called??

We can’t be two players down

I think the scenario should be treated like a losing a RFA. Given that Brayshaw earned circa $750K, that should equate to roughly what North got for McKay. im not sure if ladder position has anything to do with it, but it would fairly equate to an early-mid 1st round pick in 2024. 

Now you have to ask yourself, where would you draw the line? Is it only when the AFL forcibly medically retires a player, which it will only really do on concussion matters. Would you be prepared to accept a similar outcome if it was say Murphy at the Pies? 

Can this type of precedent be taken advantage of? i.e. will clubs load up players with questionable concussion outlook and offer than high salary, long term deals? i would say it would be unlikely. No one would have expected Brayshaw to be taken out like that and then forced to retire. 

5 hours ago, Redleg said:

Richo said we won’t be asking the AFL for a pick now. Apparently content with our position of 2 players down.

I’d think the club is taking a longer term view to the loss of Gus. We can’t replace him with a player of any worth this late in the season, or next season. At least replace him with a player thru trade or the draft at season’s end 

11 minutes ago, Demonsterative said:

I’d think the club is taking a longer term view to the loss of Gus. We can’t replace him with a player of any worth this late in the season, or next season. At least replace him with a player thru trade or the draft at season’s end 

Yep we will have pick 18 or pick 1 depending on who you read on here 

If they make us keep his salary in the cap for the next 5 years I will lose my mind.

It is incredible yet unsurprising that the AFL has not determined whether the club or league pay what is owing on the contract, how this impacts on salary cap, access to supplementary players, and how draft pick compensation would work if the league medically retires a player.

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

BRAYSHAW UNCERTAINTY

The AFL is expected to have discussions with Melbourne about the salary cap implications of Angus Brayshaw’s retirement given he has five more seasons left on his contract.

The league medically retired Brayshaw and while the Demons spent Thursday farewelling their premiership star, his position will clearly set a precedent for all clubs.

Brayshaw could agree to accept a smaller figure on a contract of between $700,000-$800,000 as part of an agreement with the club or the AFL could grant the Demons some cap relief.

Rival list bosses agreed there was no set protocol for medical retirements given most players to retire recently including Marcus Adams, Paul Seedsman and Paddy McCartin did not have long-term deals.

The AFL’s intervention into Brayshaw’s career will give the Demons the best chance of reducing the cap implications of his deal until 2028.

It's definitely an interesting and different situation to other retirements from the game. Most if not all players wind down their careers with 1-2 year contracts and at most might have an extra year to run in which they fully intended on playing but got say a knee injury that prevented them from seeing out the contract.

This on the other hand is totally different, this is a player that was very much part of the future for the next 5+ years and has been forced to retire due to an act on the footy field causing severe brain injury. I think it's only right in this context that the AFL allows his contract to be paid outside of the salary cap or at the very least most of it outside. It's not like we entered into the long term deal with the idea of a medical retirement on the cards.

Jesus effing christ that Maynard hit is going to be one of the most constant reasons to hate Collingwood for me, I had managed to move on from it but this has brought it right back. I hope their club is cursed from the 2023 premiership and they never see another until Maynard is a bitter old man.

On 23/02/2024 at 08:52, Demon17 said:

Read today's article by Peter Ryan in the Age.

Sums up Angus beautifully, but also refers to mayanard having to carry the load for this decsion by Angus and maynard's action.

IMO, Brayshaw is and will be all class and revered into the future. I know I will.

mayard is now a footnote/stain on AFL history (along with the Tribunal members who found him not guilty). A much bigger lifetime burden to carry than a lousy 3 week suspension he should have been handed.

One would be required to have a conscience for then to carry this as a burden. 

On 23/02/2024 at 09:21, Mazer Rackham said:

The upcoming class action lawsuit against the AFL.

Which I have heard rumoured could bankrupt the AFL

14 hours ago, FearTheBeard said:

No compensation is required other than making sure we dont have to pay him out for the next 4 years. Assume common sense will prevail with that one tho

Assuming common sense (or decency) from the AFL is a big leap. 

8 hours ago, rpfc said:

Mid-season Supplementary player period? Or whatever it is called??

We can’t be two players down

Agree 100% re Gus: too bad about the other guy.  

6 hours ago, chookrat said:

It is incredible yet unsurprising that the AFL has not determined whether the club or league pay what is owing on the contract, how this impacts on salary cap, access to supplementary players, and how draft pick compensation would work if the league medically retires a player.

Of course the body running (or ruining*) OUR game will yet again make a ruling in the run. It is their specialty.  

*autocorrect can sometimes be very perceptive. 

Edited February 24, 20241 yr by monoccular

If the AFL and Players Association are serious about creating an environment that puts players safety and welfare at the forefront, then for a medically retired player the balance of the contract should be treated outside of a club salary cap.

If not, what would this mean for future contracts for players with concussion histories and would clubs be prioritising medical observation?

2 hours ago, TheWiz said:

If the AFL and Players Association are serious about creating an environment that puts players safety and welfare at the forefront, then for a medically retired player the balance of the contract should be treated outside of a club salary cap.

If not, what would this mean for future contracts for players with concussion histories and would clubs be prioritising medical observation?

It is an interesting question re which party takes on the risk of player being injured when signing a player on a long term deal.

I think the difference between a medical retirement and retirement due to injury is that rehab is always possible with an injury, where as a medical retirement is where the medical condition creates a situation where continuing to play would create an unacceptable risk.

I cannot think of a situation where an injury in itself is career ending. Usually a player might suffer a recurring injury which means they eventually retire as it becomes too hard to get back to a condition where they can play.

Re medical retirement while brain injury is the most topical there would be other scenarios such as heart irregularities and potentially other conditions that cause seizures etc that could result in medical retirement. Even the eye condition that Mason Cox has would have resulted in medical retirement if he wasn't able to wear goggles.

I think its reasonable for the AFL to share in the risk of medical retirements given it is a workplace health and safety decision that is entirely outside the control of the football department.  Obviously the salary should be outside of the salary cap and the AFL or insurance should contribute towards the contract payout and the retirement frees up a list spot. I think there is also a good case for draft pick compensation given the medical retirement is fully outside of the control of the football department and that the free agency compo formula is probably a good basis to work from.

6 minutes ago, chookrat said:

It is an interesting question re which party takes on the risk of player being injured when signing a player on a long term deal.

I think the difference between a medical retirement and retirement due to injury is that rehab is always possible with an injury, where as a medical retirement is where the medical condition creates a situation where continuing to play would create an unacceptable risk.

I cannot think of a situation where an injury in itself is career ending. Usually a player might suffer a recurring injury which means they eventually retire as it becomes too hard to get back to a condition where they can play.

Re medical retirement while brain injury is the most topical there would be other scenarios such as heart irregularities and potentially other conditions that cause seizures etc that could result in medical retirement. Even the eye condition that Mason Cox has would have resulted in medical retirement if he wasn't able to wear goggles.

I think its reasonable for the AFL to share in the risk of medical retirements given it is a workplace health and safety decision that is entirely outside the control of the football department.  Obviously the salary should be outside of the salary cap and the AFL or insurance should contribute towards the contract payout and the retirement frees up a list spot. I think there is also a good case for draft pick compensation given the medical retirement is fully outside of the control of the football department and that the free agency compo formula is probably a good basis to work from.

Really well said and great point about workplace health and safety

On 23/02/2024 at 08:44, Mazer Rackham said:

The AFL isn't wary of our fan base the way they are of Collingwood's/Essendon's/etc.

Nor are any journos going to rile up the masses with op-eds demanding compo.

No way we'll get any compo.

The compo that we will get is Angus whole contact, will count to our salary cap, the way the AFL works is they hate Melbourne being any good, they are likely to punish  us by including Angus's money to the salary cap.

22 hours ago, sue said:

Content?  Sounds too much like the "Black Knight's" behaviour to me.

We still have an arm and a leg.

57 minutes ago, marieisademon said:

The compo that we will get is Angus whole contact, will count to our salary cap, the way the AFL works is they hate Melbourne being any good, they are likely to punish  us by including Angus's money to the salary cap.

Can't see that happening, when the AFL ended his footy career themselves.

Time to stop the blubbering, before our season is derailed  by it.

2 minutes ago, bluey said:

Time to stop the blubbering, before our season is derailed  by it.

I doubt supporters blubbering on a forum have that much impact in our season.