Main Menu

Mitch Clark Retires

Started by Ricochet, April 08, 2014, 04:48:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ziplock

Quote from: Toga on April 08, 2014, 05:39:36 PM
Oh right well then that's good news for the club, would be pretty hard on them if they had to pay it out. I wasn't sure how it worked though because Brisbane had to pay out Brendan Fevola but that's probably a different scenario altogether?

brisbane sacked fev though, and I'm pretty sure there was a specific contract clause for him.

Quote from: SydneyRox on April 08, 2014, 06:00:02 PM
Quote from: Toga on April 08, 2014, 05:33:28 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on April 08, 2014, 05:26:03 PM
FYI he was on 750k a year, bit of a war chest I guess melb have now

Will Melb have to pay out the remainder of his contract despite early retirement? Iirc it was a $3M, four year deal (2012-2015)...

You would think Melb and the AFL have some duty of care and would have discussed how this all works. But cant see it going into the salary cap, so that means they will have some money to throw around. Frawley stays?

I don't know if melbourne has the money  :P

tbagrocks

Just a point. If Mitch was  Free Agent and moved clubs, the Dee's would get compo, seeing as he retired though still being a required player, Melbourne will not be compensated

So, this if a flaw in the system, good luck to Mitch and wish him the best, but the Dee's are losing a big key forward for nothing

Mailman the 2nd

I'm confused, at what point do clubs get compensation for players retiring?

Melbourne won't be paying him anymore, and they obviously wouldn't get refunded a trade

tbagrocks

Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on April 08, 2014, 09:21:50 PM
I'm confused, at what point do clubs get compensation for players retiring?

Melbourne won't be paying him anymore, and they obviously wouldn't get refunded a trade
So this is different to a free agent leaving how? It's basically the same

Toga

I can see where you are coming from tbagrocks but the AFL can't go handing compensation picks to clubs for every retirement that occurs. I know this one is different because it is an early retirement for a marquee player, but he's not the first player that will retire due to injury, and I'm sure he won't be the last.

Mailman the 2nd

Quote from: tbagrocks on April 08, 2014, 09:48:46 PM
Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on April 08, 2014, 09:21:50 PM
I'm confused, at what point do clubs get compensation for players retiring?

Melbourne won't be paying him anymore, and they obviously wouldn't get refunded a trade
So this is different to a free agent leaving how? It's basically the same

He's not going to be playing football anymore, its illogical to say Melbourne deserve compensation because a player can't physically compete anymore

tbagrocks

No it's not illogical, logic says that a required player in his prime is important to a football club, how is that illogical? ???

So for whatever reason, he needs to retire. Say it happens to Jeremy Cameron, bad luck? Yes but, if JC sins for Collingwood, GWS still lose the player but gets compensated

Where is the difference to GWS/Melbourne losing a key player?

Toga

Just different circumstances tbag. I guess the compensation pick tries to prevent the club gaining the player from getting a huge advantage on the club losing the player. But when the player retires, the club is losing it's player, yes, but no other club will be gaining that player.

Compo picks system still pretty flawed though.

Spite

Wish him all the best.

Curious if this will push the demons below the 92.5% cap minimum limit though, I wonder what rules are in place?

Toga

Quote from: Spite on April 08, 2014, 10:39:50 PM
Wish him all the best.

Curious if this will push the demons below the 92.5% cap minimum limit though, I wonder what rules are in place?

I assume they'd be paying out his contract for at least this season, that's what I was kinda getting at before with my posts above ^^

powersuperkents

Why was Mitch Clark depressed??

He played for Melbourne hahahahahahahahahahahaha  ;D  :P

Ziplock

Quote from: tbagrocks on April 08, 2014, 10:06:36 PM
No it's not illogical, logic says that a required player in his prime is important to a football club, how is that illogical? ???

So for whatever reason, he needs to retire. Say it happens to Jeremy Cameron, bad luck? Yes but, if JC sins for Collingwood, GWS still lose the player but gets compensated

Where is the difference to GWS/Melbourne losing a key player?

ok, so basically, the compo pick is because your player got enticed away from your club by a competing club, generally for more money.

Retirement doesn't entice players away from their club for more money advantaging a competing club.

Bill Manspeaker

Quote from: powersuperkents on April 08, 2014, 11:29:04 PM
Why was Mitch Clark depressed??

He played for Melbourne hahahahahahahahahahahaha  ;D  :P

there are some things ya don't joke about mate, depression is one of them

Justin Bieber

Know it was done as a joke, just careful on some touchy subjects PSK :).

powersuperkents

My apologies to anyone offended, it was purely intended as a joke but I understand that my actions were wrong.

Again to anyone offended by my comments I am truly sorry