Legal eagles, help me out here.

Would any MFC contribution to salary be under Oliver's existing contract, a new one, or (heaven forbid!) none?

Presuming a contract operates, particularly his existing one, would Oliver be in conflict of interest (under both his MFC and otherFC contracts) if he played against us? Would this at least be grounds to require he not play; or even, at best, a breach of contract?

Fun if we faced off in a GF...

Edited 20 hours ago20 hr by Timothy Reddan-A'Blew

17 hours ago, picket fence said:

Jack Viney is a Rugby player, not a bootlace on Clayton Oliver!

I think it extraordinary that the MFC would contemplate letting Clayton Oliver go for a massive net loss (3rd round pick return against a large part of his contracted salary) and then celebrating that we still have no 7, who to be fair is barely up to AFL standard these days and would struggle to get into other teams as a mid-field player - slow, cannot kick, and the days of battering rams being in demand are over.

All this talk about culture and bad apples - as far as I can tell, Clayton Oliver is just a young kid with some issues, but he wanted to stay and he looked good towards the end of last season. But he has mercurial skills that most of the rest of players do not have. There are a lots of young kids with some issues who just need some leadership put around them to function.

Clayton and Christian Petracca are our generational talents who still can play better than most despite their own shortcomings.

MFC is mad to let them go.

It’s the same logic as in any other sport:

• what’s the point of trying to hang on to someone who doesn’t want to be here?

2 minutes ago, William said:

I think it extraordinary that the MFC would contemplate letting Clayton Oliver go for a massive net loss (3rd round pick return against a large part of his contracted salary) and then celebrating that we still have no 7, who to be fair is barely up to AFL standard these days and would struggle to get into other teams as a mid-field player - slow, cannot kick, and the days of battering rams being in demand are over.

All this talk about culture and bad apples - as far as I can tell, Clayton Oliver is just a young kid with some issues, but he wanted to stay and he looked good towards the end of last season. But he has mercurial skills that most of the rest of players do not have. There are a lots of young kids with some issues who just need some leadership put around them to function.

Clayton and Christian Petracca are our generational talents who still can play better than most despite their own shortcomings.

MFC is mad to let them go.

Not so sure Oliver is just a kid anymore. Honestly I think it is an indictment on players like Clarry and Petracca not becoming leaders within the club.

Lastly I am not sure that a "young" Oliver is any good as a role model for the "actual" younger players on our list. Hence why we trading him, not getting value for money, nor setting standards.

Loved him for most of his career, but last few years he has been symptomatic with our fall.

Perhaps coincidental, perhaps not!

11 minutes ago, William said:

Clayton and Christian Petracca are our generational talents who still can play better than most despite their own shortcomings.

MFC is mad to let them go.

Surely, it's occurred to you that for Melbourne to be taking the actions they are that there are compelling reasons that you're not privy to ?

Or do you think you're armed with all of the necessary information ?

6 minutes ago, William said:

I think it extraordinary that the MFC would contemplate letting Clayton Oliver go for a massive net loss (3rd round pick return against a large part of his contracted salary) and then celebrating that we still have no 7, who to be fair is barely up to AFL standard these days and would struggle to get into other teams as a mid-field player - slow, cannot kick, and the days of battering rams being in demand are over.

All this talk about culture and bad apples - as far as I can tell, Clayton Oliver is just a young kid with some issues, but he wanted to stay and he looked good towards the end of last season. But he has mercurial skills that most of the rest of players do not have. There are a lots of young kids with some issues who just need some leadership put around them to function.

Clayton and Christian Petracca are our generational talents who still can play better than most despite their own shortcomings.

MFC is mad to let them go.

The MFC would agree the likely Oliver deal is a pretty sh!!t!e one. But even knowing this, they are taking this course of action - which appears to be the lesser of two evils for them. They would know far better than us the impact Oliver has had / is having on the Club, and as the stated aim of this Trade Period is to make the Club better, I have to trust that moving Clarry on is helping to achieve that aim. Still hurts though.

35 minutes ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

Legal eagles, help me out here.

Would any MFC contribution to salary be under Oliver's existing contract, a new one, or (heaven forbid!) none?

Presuming a contract operates, particularly his existing one, would Oliver be in conflict of interest (under both his MFC and otherFC contracts) if he played against us? Would this at least be grounds to require he not play; or even, at best, a breach of contract?

Fun if we faced off in a GF...

The parties to the contract would amend it in line with whatever was now agreed between them.

16 minutes ago, Gator said:

Surely, it's occurred to you that for Melbourne to be taking the actions they are that there are compelling reasons that you're not privy to ?

Or do you think you're armed with all of the necessary information ?

13 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

The MFC would agree the likely Oliver deal is a pretty sh!!t!e one. But even knowing this, they are taking this course of action - which appears to be the lesser of two evils for them. They would know far better than us the impact Oliver has had / is having on the Club, and as the stated aim of this Trade Period is to make the Club better, I have to trust that moving Clarry on is helping to achieve that aim. Still hurts though.

This will be the PR challenge; to get the privy info across sufficiently, and convincingly align actions with aims. All while acknowledging but de-catastrophising the financial and other costs.

4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

The parties to the contract would amend it in line with whatever was now agreed between them.

Yeah, I guess. Any wriggle space for leverage in final i.e. actual contract/s negotiations?

And would there be a conflict of interest case regardless of contract terms? I know there's been lots of salary-shares already out there, with no such action having been taken in any of them.

44 minutes ago, William said:

Clayton Oliver is just a young kid with some issues

He's a grown man. 28 years of age. well past being a kid

36 minutes ago, Demons Fan in Canada said:

It’s the same logic as in any other sport:

• what’s the point of trying to hang on to someone who doesn’t want to be here?

Clarry came out( through his manager) after his exit meeting and said he was happy and not going anywhere. He wanted to be here until we changed our minds.

This is the problem I have with it all- not the decision I can understand that but how we have handled it.

We made a balls of it last year and an even bigger balls of it this year.

31 minutes ago, Gator said:

Surely, it's occurred to you that for Melbourne to be taking the actions they are that there are compelling reasons that you're not privy to ?

Or do you think you're armed with all of the necessary information ?

The same compelling reasons why the Western Bulldogs let Hunter go and the Pies let Grundy go.

We've got the same person making the list management decisions.

As supporters/members, based on their track record, we have every right to question those making the decisions.

37 minutes ago, Gator said:

Surely, it's occurred to you that for Melbourne to be taking the actions they are that there are compelling reasons that you're not privy to ?

Or do you think you're armed with all of the necessary information ?

Exactly..

The confronting reality is not that we are doing what we are...it's that this is the preferred choice of action for whatever is the reality causing it.

It is pretty clear the club views Clayton Oliver's impact on the performance of other players, the time and energy the takes up from coaches, board, and media, and likely also on the reputation of the club as a destination for recruits, as outweighing his 'good ordinary' on-field contribution in the last 24 months.

I do have a vague recollection of people complaining that we hadn't been able to attract any A-grade players for a while... hmmm...

2 hours ago, DeeZone said:

Jeez QBD have you read the Sack Goody thread’s, SG has received more heat on DLand and in the Press than anyone in the Footy bubble Ever may have been edged out by the “kings” antics a few years back but it has been relentless.

Have you actually read, and understood, what I wrote?

2 hours ago, William said:

I think it extraordinary that the MFC would contemplate letting Clayton Oliver go for a massive net loss (3rd round pick return against a large part of his contracted salary) and then celebrating that we still have no 7, who to be fair is barely up to AFL standard these days and would struggle to get into other teams as a mid-field player - slow, cannot kick, and the days of battering rams being in demand are over.

All this talk about culture and bad apples - as far as I can tell, Clayton Oliver is just a young kid with some issues, but he wanted to stay and he looked good towards the end of last season. But he has mercurial skills that most of the rest of players do not have. There are a lots of young kids with some issues who just need some leadership put around them to function.

Clayton and Christian Petracca are our generational talents who still can play better than most despite their own shortcomings.

MFC is mad to let them go.

Absolutely insane thinking by MFC

1 hour ago, Colm said:

Clarry came out( through his manager) after his exit meeting and said he was happy and not going anywhere. He wanted to be here until we changed our minds.

This is the problem I have with it all- not the decision I can understand that but how we have handled it.

We made a balls of it last year and an even bigger balls of it this year.

Clarry, in a late season interview, talked about how he was looking forward to further developing our new game plan in 2026. He sounded excited by the thought. The along comes Mr King and his cohorts.

2 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie 2 said:

Clarry, in a late season interview, talked about how he was looking forward to further developing our new game plan in 2026. He sounded excited by the thought. The along comes Mr King and his cohorts.

Do you really think this was kings decision alone?

3 minutes ago, BDA said:

Do you really think this was kings decision alone?

He would have the main say. That's for sure. He is the boss.

52 minutes ago, Bobby McKenzie 2 said:

He would have the main say. That's for sure. He is the boss.

Disagree. There would be many senior figures involved in this decision. Personal have gone (Pert, Roffey, Goodwin), and perhaps they needed to, so decisions such as this could be made.

3 hours ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

Legal eagles, help me out here.

Would any MFC contribution to salary be under Oliver's existing contract, a new one, or (heaven forbid!) none?

Presuming a contract operates, particularly his existing one, would Oliver be in conflict of interest (under both his MFC and otherFC contracts) if he played against us? Would this at least be grounds to require he not play; or even, at best, a breach of contract?

Fun if we faced off in a GF...

I'm no legal eagle but I recall when Grundy left us to go to Sydney, his contract for the amount Coll paid was with Coll. Coll are still paying on that contract.

What we paid Grundy was a new contract with us which ended when he was traded out. But his contract with with the Pies continued.

Grundy signed a new contract with Sydney which may or may not have been the same he had with us. We had no further obligation once he was traded.

I assume the same goes with Oliver, except we are the ones paying him to play elsewhere which I assume involves a new contract with us and a new one with GWS..

There is no history of a conflict of interest affecting team selection in the AFL.

Edited 17 hours ago17 hr by Lucifers Hero

When Grundy moved to the Swans the Pies made noises along the lines that the deal to pay part of his salary died if he left the MFC. This suggested that we had signed Grundy for the full amount and separately Collingwood agreed to pay MFC the greed annual supplement.

Anyway Collingwood backed down and all was sweet.

The "learnings" for the lawyers is that this time the contracts will be tighter.

My guess is that the player looks only to one source for payment and that the supplement is an inter club arrangement. To do otherwise would be messy from an income tax/payroll tax/insurance/discipline viewpoint

1 hour ago, Bobby McKenzie 2 said:

Clarry, in a late season interview, talked about how he was looking forward to further developing our new game plan in 2026. He sounded excited by the thought. The along comes Mr King and his cohorts.

Yep exactly that!

3 hours ago, Colm said:

Clarry came out( through his manager) after his exit meeting and said he was happy and not going anywhere. He wanted to be here until we changed our minds.

This is the problem I have with it all- not the decision I can understand that but how we have handled it.

We made a balls of it last year and an even bigger balls of it this year.

Clarry actually attended his exit interview?

Do you think something happened prior to the recent King meeting or do you believe the club as such amateurs they instigated trading him on a whim and that King wanted to change his role?

None of the Clarry, Trac and May decisions will ever make sense based just on what we are fed from the player/manager, club and media publicly.

If Giants want to give only a 3rd rounder, we should be paying nowhere near $700k, closer to $250k and still we’re getting bent over.

Lamb fails at the contract table, then again at the trade table.