2 hours ago, bing181 said:

i.e., break his contract.

Not difficult.

The comparison is broken contracts on both sides vs broken contract on one side and low value draft picks on the other side.

Not difficult.

Edited Saturday at 21:542 days by old55

I think a stumbling block in the trade with GC is that 7 and 8 aren't liquid assets outside the Petracca trade. Sure they could trade them back for more points but they've got plenty of points already with them. No-one really wants to trade future picks into this year's first round and there isn't anyone else of merit to trade them for.

If they wanted to go all-in they could do Humphrey for Petracca + 23 + 28 + 41 and then offer Carlton 7 + 8 + F1 for Curnow and forget JUH.

2 hours ago, BoBo said:

Breaking a contract would mean one party is failing to fulfil an obligation stipulated by a contract.

BH asking to be traded whilst still under contract, isn’t breaking or ‘a breach’ of contract.

I.e., same as Petracca.

3 hours ago, BoBo said:

Breaking a contract would mean one party is failing to fulfil an obligation stipulated by a contract.

BH asking to be traded whilst still under contract, isn’t breaking or ‘a breach’ of contract.

It's a repudiation of the contract (ie anticipatory breach), if we want to get technical about things...

Damo referring to Tracc as Brand Petracca, must be a DL reader like the rest of the media.

4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Damo referring to Tracc as Brand Petracca, must be a DL reader like the rest of the media.

Once he’s at the suns that will stop and he’ll be back to being referred to as a champion. Damo trying to downgrade his value right now… on behalf of the AFL… and because he hates the dees.

12 hours ago, BoBo said:

This is where I get a bit conflicted. I agree with what you’re saying, but on the flip side, (this is the opposite side of the paying contracted players that leave the club coin), players have also signed contracts with clubs that they are required to fulfil. So if we don’t get to a stage that we feel like we have gotten a good deal… then he’s a contracted player and that’s kinda that.

That’s flattening dynamics a hellava lot I realise, but if the players are going to try and leave on contracts and do it in a ‘this is just the business’ sense, then conversely, that attitude/ethos also applies the opposite way.

He signed a massive, long term contract with us so that can’t only cut one way IMO.

The whole contract system is a joke. It seems to me it is only binding when it suits the player. Some of these long contracts currently being offered are ridiculous. Take Oliver, the club tells him his role will change next year, he spits the dummy and wants out. If he does achieve this desire he can claim mental problems and simply refuse to take the field. The MFC has no choice but to pay him. IMO if a player wants out and club agrees then the contract should end there and he negotiates a new deal with the new club. This porting your salary from the old team to the new one is [censored].

47 minutes ago, old dee said:

The whole contract system is a joke. It seems to me it is only binding when it suits the player. Some of these long contracts currently being offered are ridiculous. Take Oliver, the club tells him his role will change next year, he spits the dummy and wants out. If he does achieve this desire he can claim mental problems and simply refuse to take the field. The MFC has no choice but to pay him. IMO if a player wants out and club agrees then the contract should end there and he negotiates a new deal with the new club. This porting your salary from the old team to the new one is [censored].

100% agreed. The clubs need more power here. Also the way the contracts are structured need some type of AFL intervention. How players are rewarded and paid needs to be overhauled as the players are taking the absolute mickey out of the clubs. Id also look at overhauling the existing provision for early termination by club. So if a player seeks a trade, the salary portion of their contract is null and void and that player MUST negotiate a salary with their desired club should an exchange of picks be agreed. The idea of salary dumps and all that nonsense is unnecessary theatre. You change that one rule, and we will then see how many players with existing contracts seek to move on.

4 hours ago, DeelightfulPlay said:

It's a repudiation of the contract (ie anticipatory breach), if we want to get technical about things...

Yes, where it’s both the club and player agreeing to not see out the life of a contract (except financially which I think is dumb) vs one party not fulfilling an obligation. Which is my very original point: neither club has to agree to do this.

2 hours ago, old dee said:

The whole contract system is a joke. It seems to me it is only binding when it suits the player. Some of these long contracts currently being offered are ridiculous. Take Oliver, the club tells him his role will change next year, he spits the dummy and wants out. If he does achieve this desire he can claim mental problems and simply refuse to take the field. The MFC has no choice but to pay him. IMO if a player wants out and club agrees then the contract should end there and he negotiates a new deal with the new club. This porting your salary from the old team to the new one is [censored].

Yeah I’m not a fan of how this scenario works out for that reason. Clubs paying out contracts to former players that ask to leave, at new clubs seems wrong on its face.

And yeah I’d agree with that. Give players deals with a clause that says ‘if you request a trade then and are traded, you forgo the payments for the rest of the contract’. Covers if they get injured/illness etc. The only way they don’t get that money is if they ask for a trade.

Players can have long contracts on big coin, but then that should only be for whilst they are actually playing/listed for that club. If clubs initiate the trade before the end of the contract, then the current situation works where they have to continue to pay.

If we end up trading for picks (which if we're being honest looks the most likely scenario now), what kind of outcomes are we looking at?

I know someone did it before but can't find it - what points go GC need for their acadamy kids?

What do we have to give them in terms of pics so they can give us 6 & 7 and still have their points?

If we have to give pics back will it be a swap for their future pics and with pick 24, in a perceived more shallow pool, what are the odds we could trade trade that in for a teams future first hence making it too valuable to merely be a trading peice?

51 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Yes, where it’s both the club and player agreeing to not see out the life of a contract (except financially which I think is dumb) vs one party not fulfilling an obligation. Which is my very original point: neither club has to agree to do this.

Agree with you BoBo.

It's not an anticipatory breach where one party simply asks the other for its agreement to mutually end the contract. An anticipatory breach would be where the player says "I'm not playing for you (club) next season without your (the Club's) agreement."

4 hours ago, Redleg said:

Damo referring to Tracc as Brand Petracca, must be a DL reader like the rest of the media.

Didn’t know he could actually read. I learn something new every day!

14 minutes ago, At Least I Saw a Flag said:

Agree with you BoBo.

It's not an anticipatory breach where one party simply asks the other for its agreement to mutually end the contract. An anticipatory breach would be where the player says "I'm not playing for you (club) next season without your (the Club's) agreement."

Words or Actions: It can be communicated through a clear statement or inferred from conduct that shows an inability or unwillingness to perform.

It can be inferred by conduct. It doesn't have to be what you've stated.

One wonders will the Dogs get better compensation for Jamara … Imagine that… hope lamb takes a tough stance

CHRISTIAN PETRACCA

Discussions have been ongoing between Melbourne and Gold Coast on a deal for Petracca, who has four years left on his contract at the Dees. Melbourne made Bailey Humphrey its No.1 priority in a deal, having long targeted him, but the Suns are adamant he is not going anywhere despite him pushing for a return to Victoria. With him off the table, the Demons have their eyes on the Suns' picks No.7 and 8 in exchange for Petracca and later draft selections to assist Gold Coast's bidding situation for top Academy pair Zeke Uwland and Dylan Patterson.

23 minutes ago, Gator said:

Words or Actions: It can be communicated through a clear statement or inferred from conduct that shows an inability or unwillingness to perform.

It can be inferred by conduct. It doesn't have to be what you've stated.

It can indeed. But there would have to be conduct consistent with an intention to not fulfil the terms of the contract.

The media ( does not matter which one ) suggests we take pick 7 and 8 and giving back pick 24 so they can the SUNS can get their two academy picks. The MFC are not in the business of making other football clubs stronger via stupid trade deals. Lets be kind to the Suns we give them Petracca and Langford and future 1st rounders for their 4th round pick. The dumb a.s media would think that's a good idea. Taking pick 7 and 8 is a stupid idea ( perhaps stupid these days is the new normal) . What are the the SUNS giving up for JUH ?

On 11/10/2025 at 09:36, Demonland said:

The media are pushing hard for us to take the picks.

Bailey Humphrey deal unlikely to happen IMHO

Not only the media, suddenly some relatively new posters seem very happy to drive into the lottery and wait for two years minimum.

24 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

What are people’s thoughts if this prediction transpires?

Picks 7 and 15 for Trac, 28 and 42.

Just now, Bring-Back-Powell said:

What are people’s thoughts if this prediction transpires?

Picks 7 and 15 for Trac, 28 and 42.

I would literally burn the club down if we accept this deal

Pick 7+8 is gonna be hard to swallow but 7+15 is just GC sh!tt!ng in our hand and telling us to clap

1 minute ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

What are people’s thoughts if this prediction transpires?

Picks 7 and 15 for Trac, 28 and 42.

Think we’d need something in next years draft as well.

Edited Sunday at 08:252 days by Colm

26 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

What are people’s thoughts if this prediction transpires?

Picks 7 and 15 for Trac, 28 and 42.

Can't be addressed in isolation. e.g. if we're effectively doing a salary dump so we can go for a big fish in the near future, it could make sense in the bigger picture - even if it seems unappealing in itself.

Clubs are always planning years in advance, or trying to, so should be seen in that context.

But none of us really know what's behind all this, we don't even know with certainty why Trac wants to move.