Brad Howard training?

[maverick]

With BH training we must be looking at either re drafting or as a rookie, obvious I know, but it raises a question as to the mysterious 2 year contract.

If he did sign a contract and we paid him out and delisted him, I think the money is included in this year's TPP not next years'.

This could further explain creating some room in the TPP for Cuz...obviously not loads given what BH would be on....

I enjoy conspiracy theories....

[Saints Premiers 2008]

it would be very clever to have the available dosh to pay howard out on the two year deal to free up money for cousins and carroll

maybe at the time howard was signed both of the above players were not on the horizon...or foreseeable

to pay him out and then get him as a rookie makes howard a rich boy

he might be thanking big benny c if he goes on and has a good career after all...

[saintly]

I have been away for 2 weeks.

i thought brad howard had been signed for 2 years?

[Bernard Shakey]

Clearly the idea was to cut him and redraft him as a rookie.

Nobody will pick him up with a 2 year contract.

Still have no idea what is going on, as he will never make it.

Sandringham will have a serviceable player this year to go with Caroll.

[WayneJudson42]

Clearly the idea was to cut him and redraft him as a rookie.

Nobody will pick him up with a 2 year contract.

Still have no idea what is going on, as he will never make it.

Sandringham will have a serviceable player this year to go with Caroll.

Look on the bright side... you now have 2 other players to take your focus off Kosi

[henno]

yeh but uve got to remember that mcq was delisted with a year remaining on his contract
that was why we were forced to rookie him last year

[Cosmo Kramer]

Howard is still on the list,he was never delisted.

[Bernard Shakey]

Clearly the idea was to cut him and redraft him as a rookie.

Nobody will pick him up with a 2 year contract.

Still have no idea what is going on, as he will never make it.

Sandringham will have a serviceable player this year to go with Caroll.

Look on the bright side... you now have 2 other players to take your focus off Kosi :lol:

Kosi is a man who is essential to the future of the St Kilda Football Club.

I don't see Howard or Carroll being in that position.

[St Fidelius]

Clearly the idea was to cut him and redraft him as a rookie.

Nobody will pick him up with a 2 year contract.

Still have no idea what is going on, as he will never make it.

Sandringham will have a serviceable player this year to go with Caroll.

I don't understand this comment...

Surely if another club picks Howard up, the Saints would have to pay a large chunk of that 2 year deal???

But, if he is training with us I feel sure he will be rookied

[cowboy66]

Peeps Howard was NEVER delisted...he is still on our list as a player, not a rookie..that explains why he is still training...cos he is still employed by the STKFC.

[St Fidelius]

Peeps Howard was NEVER delisted...he is still on our list as a player, not a rookie..that explains why he is still training...cos he is still employed by the STKFC.

Going by this article on the AFL website he was delisted.

http://www.afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/ ... wsId=69795

[SaintBot]

He has nominated for the draft, he has certainly been delisted. Whether its a temporary, permanent delisting or a de-elevation to the rookie list remains to be seen.

[plugger66]

Will be picked up by us as a rookie for next year. Was obviously delisted so we could get Carroll next year which IMO is a huge mistake. Trouble with a capital d**khead.

[sunsaint]

just a question for any lawyers, player managers, or AFL players who have had contract.
Would it be possible that a multi year contract may have an escape clause written in that would enable a club to reduce the length and cost of terminating. Something like after serving 50% of the length of the term, the club can terminate service at 40-50-60% of the player payment.
Just a thought,

[BAM! (shhhh)]

just a question for any lawyers, player managers, or AFL players who have had contract.
Would it be possible that a multi year contract may have an escape clause written in that would enable a club to reduce the length and cost of terminating. Something like after serving 50% of the length of the term, the club can terminate service at 40-50-60% of the player payment.
Just a thought,

The CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement - it can be viewed here http://aflpa.com.au/sites/all/files/AFL ... _FINAL.pdf) between the AFLPA and the AFL, dictates structures such as bonuses, clauses, options etc.

I believe the relevant section can be found on page 91.

From a quick scan, I believe the summary relevant to Howard would be:
- Howard is entitled to his base payments for the entire term of the contract (2 years)
- Howard is entitled to 22 match payments next year based on his VFL match payment level.

If he's drafted by someone else, they will need to take on (at least) the outstanding match payments.

UNLESS

There was a specific termination agreement between Howard and the club.

[plugger66]

just a question for any lawyers, player managers, or AFL players who have had contract.
Would it be possible that a multi year contract may have an escape clause written in that would enable a club to reduce the length and cost of terminating. Something like after serving 50% of the length of the term, the club can terminate service at 40-50-60% of the player payment.
Just a thought,

The CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement - it can be viewed here http://aflpa.com.au/sites/all/files/AFL ... _FINAL.pdf) between the AFLPA and the AFL, dictates structures such as bonuses, clauses, options etc.

I believe the relevant section can be found on page 91.

From a quick scan, I believe the summary relevant to Howard would be:
- Howard is entitled to his base payments for the entire term of the contract (2 years)
- Howard is entitled to 22 match payments next year based on his VFL match payment level.

If he's drafted by someone else, they will need to take on (at least) the outstanding match payments.

UNLESS

There was a specific termination agreement between Howard and the club.

There are no match payments for playing in he VFL. He will get all of his contract as a senior player for the next 2 years even though he will only be a rookie.

[ace]

[quote="cowboy66"]Peeps Howard was NEVER delisted...he is still on our list as a player, not a rookie..that explains why he is still training...cos he is still employed by the STKFC.[/quote]

Howard's name was removed from the senior list submitted 14 November but his name did not appear among the deletions under delisted.

Check it out at http://www.afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/ ... wsId=69788

[BAM! (shhhh)]

just a question for any lawyers, player managers, or AFL players who have had contract.
Would it be possible that a multi year contract may have an escape clause written in that would enable a club to reduce the length and cost of terminating. Something like after serving 50% of the length of the term, the club can terminate service at 40-50-60% of the player payment.
Just a thought,

The CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement - it can be viewed here http://aflpa.com.au/sites/all/files/AFL ... _FINAL.pdf) between the AFLPA and the AFL, dictates structures such as bonuses, clauses, options etc.

I believe the relevant section can be found on page 91.

From a quick scan, I believe the summary relevant to Howard would be:
- Howard is entitled to his base payments for the entire term of the contract (2 years)
- Howard is entitled to 22 match payments next year based on his VFL match payment level.

If he's drafted by someone else, they will need to take on (at least) the outstanding match payments.

UNLESS

There was a specific termination agreement between Howard and the club.

There are no match payments for playing in he VFL. He will get all of his contract as a senior player for the next 2 years even though he will only be a rookie.

No? I really have no idea about this, but the CBA states they must be paid according to the level most recently played, so I inferred VFL player payments. Perhaps the intended implication is that there's only payments if their most recent game was AFL.

Regardless, you wouldn't think they'd be large enough to prevent anyone genuinely interested.