11 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Surely that is open for abuse?

I don't know about abuse but that is how it works. Its up to the player and manager to negotiate a new contract with the new club. The new club does not have to take the terms of the contract with the old club.

If you mean GWS end up paying less than the 'nominal' value of Oliver's contract after deducting the mfc portion, yes that can and probably will happen particularly as Oliver said last year he would take a pay cut if we traded him - the pay cut was with Geelong not with mfc.

Edited 8 hours ago8 hr by Lucifers Hero

32 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Why does Jamarra's contract get torn up and he sits on a lower salary for 2026 and beyond?

And Oliver gets his full payment terms?

Can someone enlighten me?

Clarry’s major crime was going to the pokies and putting someone’s wind screen wipers up. Some other stuff too but since the start of the ‘24 season he hasn’t made a single public error.

Jamarra, well….google it I guess.

At the end of the day there’s nothing in contracts about not being at your best. The Hawks had Chad Wingard unfit and playing Playstation all the time once he got his big contract.

Even at GwS - Kelly, Coniglio, Haynes all played about half a good game between them in 4 years.

1 hour ago, Engorged Onion said:

It needs to be put in this thread 😄 https://demonland.com/forums/topic/38236-when-will-melbourne-break-these-embarrassing-records/

The most a club has ever paid a player to play somewhere else record, 😆

48 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Clarry’s major crime was going to the pokies and putting someone’s wind screen wipers up. Some other stuff too but since the start of the ‘24 season he hasn’t made a single public error.

Jamarra, well….google it I guess.

At the end of the day there’s nothing in contracts about not being at your best. The Hawks had Chad Wingard unfit and playing Playstation all the time once he got his big contract.

Even at GwS - Kelly, Coniglio, Haynes all played about half a good game between them in 4 years.

Just because you haven’t heard about it, it doesn’t mean the club doesn’t know things

3 minutes ago, Demons11 said:

Just because you haven’t heard about it, it doesn’t mean the club doesn’t know things

Of course, but you can't terminate someone's contract for stuff that doesn't even get out in the public. Plenty of questionable stuff going on in 2023, but same thing applies.

For all the talk on here about how much we leak, seems we didn't leak enough!

This sucks. I hate this. I won't be coming back to this thread once the deal goes through ✌

So, I just reckon this whole thing of Player Contracts is a farce. I reckon that, if both Club and player agree it's best for the player to move on, then that means both parties agree to cancel the Contract. This would therefore mean that there is NO on-going commitment to pay part of the player's salary at his new Club. The Contract is dead and buried, and the player then negotiates a new contract with his new Club. All liability on the former club is then ceased.

But, what would I know?!!

3 minutes ago, Vagg said:

So, I just reckon this whole thing of Player Contracts is a farce. I reckon that, if both Club and player agree it's best for the player to move on, then that means both parties agree to cancel the Contract. This would therefore mean that there is NO on-going commitment to pay part of the player's salary at his new Club. The Contract is dead and buried, and the player then negotiates a new contract with his new Club. All liability on the former club is then ceased.

But, what would I know?!!

That is already the case. Both parties can choose to terminate a contract by mutual agreement.

But why would Oliver do that when he has a giant contract that needs to be honoured? Because he feels guilty about being paid millions of dollars?

Even in a world where contract law didn't exist and moving clubs voided the contract, it would just mean that Oliver would never agree to be traded. His options are "$1.5m a year to play 5 years at Melbourne or $500,000 a year to play 2 years at GWS?" He'd just stay at Melbourne, do the bare minimum and be paid a truckload play VFL.

20 hours ago, picket fence said:

I believe he is still a super player and typically MFC have stuffed up as always

A little question, Picket. You said you'd give up your Melbourne membership if we traded Clarry. I just wondered. Will that also mean you won't grace Demonland with your presence next season?

Wonder if Clayton should be worried.

Don't think Kingsley's the type to mollycoddle anyone.

I've also wondered how Clarry has not been in breach of contract over the past 2-3 years. Surely there are clauses about professionalism and 'off-field behaviour'?

16 minutes ago, Vagg said:

So, I just reckon this whole thing of Player Contracts is a farce. I reckon that, if both Club and player agree it's best for the player to move on, then that means both parties agree to cancel the Contract. This would therefore mean that there is NO on-going commitment to pay part of the player's salary at his new Club. The Contract is dead and buried, and the player then negotiates a new contract with his new Club. All liability on the former club is then ceased.

But, what would I know?!!

Cool story, but that's not how a contract works. We signed it, he has every right to that money unless we found a way to sack him

2 minutes ago, DubDee said:

I've also wondered how Clarry has not been in breach of contract over the past 2-3 years. Surely there are clauses about professionalism and 'off-field behaviour'?

well i doubt you (or anyone here) will ever get to read his contract, so you will have to keep wondering.

but you do raise the issue of the balance of power currently existing in typical afl contracts. the players do seem to hold the power, and earn big money. not many workplace employment contracts would be so generous.

4 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Cool story, but that's not how a contract works. We signed it, he has every right to that money unless we found a way to sack him

Hmm. The way I read it, he wants out. So, if that's the case, and we are happy about that, Contract is voided. End of story! If he doesn't want a lower wage, he stays at Melb & honours his Contract.

But, as others have said, seems the Club wants rid of him at ANY cost. So be it...

It would be nice if we could turn Oliver into Steele. Use the pick and the saved salary and have the Saints pay Steele some.

28 minutes ago, Vagg said:

So, I just reckon this whole thing of Player Contracts is a farce. I reckon that, if both Club and player agree it's best for the player to move on, then that means both parties agree to cancel the Contract. This would therefore mean that there is NO on-going commitment to pay part of the player's salary at his new Club. The Contract is dead and buried, and the player then negotiates a new contract with his new Club. All liability on the former club is then ceased.

But, what would I know?!!

More than the bozo's in our footy department. Worst all-time deal. Ever

28 minutes ago, Vagg said:

So, I just reckon this whole thing of Player Contracts is a farce. I reckon that, if both Club and player agree it's best for the player to move on, then that means both parties agree to cancel the Contract. This would therefore mean that there is NO on-going commitment to pay part of the player's salary at his new Club. The Contract is dead and buried, and the player then negotiates a new contract with his new Club. All liability on the former club is then ceased.

But, what would I know?!!

Nailed the issue Vagg.

In the real world of contract law that's exactly what should happen and does happen. Unless one party wishes to enforce their rights.

Much kudos to the bombers for taking this action. And fresh airing the hawks is priceless after Mitchell started the whole issue. And now they're sooking. Geez.

At least we stood our ground and not paying any of tracs money.

The club prepared to pay huge amount of clarrys say more about clarry than us.

A past player friend in the know couldn't be happier for us.

17 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Cool story, but that's not how a contract works. We signed it, he has every right to that money unless we found a way to sack him

Which is i suspect the ugly hagan story. Dogs ready to terminate contract for various grounds. Jamara saw writing on the wall and played ball accordingly.

Good move Bevo and Dogs

1 minute ago, demon36 said:

Which is i suspect the ugly hagan story. Dogs ready to terminate contract for various grounds. Jamara saw writing on the wall and played ball accordingly.

Good move Bevo and Dogs

Helped that he only had 1 year left on the deal. Whatever he's lost for 2026 he has a chance to make up and more over the next decade.

A terrible way for a club legend’s time to end. MFC specialises at shooting itself in the foot.

13 minutes ago, old55 said:

It would be nice if we could turn Oliver into Steele. Use the pick and the saved salary and have the Saints pay Steele some.

We still have to pay Steele something, plus whatever we are paying of Clayton's contract - might still be a net "negative"? Do you mean a saving on the gross amount of the Oliver contract?

3 minutes ago, DutchDemons said:

A terrible way for a club legend’s time to end. MFC specialises at shooting itself in the foot.

The accomodation of that legend was the shooting

This is the battlefield triaging of that wound

5 minutes ago, DutchDemons said:

A terrible way for a club legend’s time to end. MFC specialises at shooting itself in the foot.

Steven King can write himself of in his next book as far as I'm concerned, he has blood on his hands!