List Mgmt. 2015 Trade, Free agency and draft rumours

[SodaPop]

I tend to believe Fox all our Buddy money has pretty much gone to Big Boy and Chippa.

There's interest in big boy. Interesting times.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

There's interest in big boy. Interesting times.

Id love to offload him if it could free up the salary.

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

There's interest in big boy. Interesting times.

You mean from other clubs?
That can only happen by swapping Luenberger with Big Boy

 

[TyHawk]

This is crazy talk. We won't get anyone mentioned.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

if Mick Warner says it, I believe it.

DANGERBABY

 

[Harper_Hawk]

if Mick Warner says it, I believe it.

DANGERBABY

If thats true..spells the end for a few players at our club or retirement...I'll be shocked if I see him in the vertical golden browns!

 

[Bonscott1980]

I tend to believe Fox all our Buddy money has pretty much gone to Big Boy and Chippa.

Well that was a waste of money

 

[Upgrayedd]

I Reckon we would literally have to trade the 2014 premiership cup for Wingard

 

[macdaddio]

Is it true we are having Wingard??

 

[TheExtractorFactor]

Daaaaannnngeerrr!!!

Btw, who is mick Warner?

Same bloke who yesterday said Richmond are in for him. He is just guessing

 

[Brishawk]

Is it true we are having Wingard??

The source is roo. I think you know the answer to your question.

 

[Mr Magic]

Guys does anyone know when Buddy was offered his big contract from the Swans could the Hawksmatch it for 2 years in the restrictive period as an option?

Just curious for the Danger situation and other scenarios going forward.

Just did some research. Buddy was getting around 900k per annum for the first 3 years of his 9 year deal.

Why did Hawthorn not match Buddies contract for the 2 restrictive years?

If you could not match the Buddy contract for 2 years why did you not take it to court on the basis of trade tampering?

 

[Steven Tyler]

Guys does anyone know when Buddy was offered his big contract from the Swans could the Hawksmatch it for 2 years in the restrictive period as an option?

Just curious for the Danger situation and other scenarios going forward.

Just did some research. Buddy was getting around 900k per annum for the first 3 years.

Why did Hawthorn not match Buddies contract for the 2 restrictive years?

If you could not match the Buddy contract for 2 years why did you not take it to court on the basis of trade tampering?

There's a restrictive period?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Guys does anyone know when Buddy was offered his big contract from the Swans could the Hawksmatch it for 2 years in the restrictive period as an option?

Just curious for the Danger situation and other scenarios going forward.

Just did some research. Buddy was getting around 900k per annum for the first 3 years of his 9 year deal.

Why did Hawthorn not match Buddies contract for the 2 restrictive years?

If you could not match the Buddy contract for 2 years why did you not take it to court on the basis of trade tampering?

You have to match the deal as per below:

A contract offer is matched if the football payments and ASAs are equivalent under the offer and the contract proposed by the player’s current club. To qualify as a matching offer, the player’s current club must make an offer on the same terms as the new offer tabled by the player including:

• Contract length;
• Base payments;
• Total match payments;
• Total ASA payments.

Sydney did the 9 year staggered contract to completely shut us out of matching the offer and trying to negotiate a trade. It was a snake move by Franklin, Pickering and Sydney and a big reason why most Hawks fans hate all 3 with the fire of a sun.

 

[Mr Magic]

TheBuddy a restrictive period?

A player is restrictive FA for 2 years. After 10 years Buddy was non restrictive FA.

The argument would be Swans manipulated the trade value of Buddy via the FA compo by incorporating contract terms in the period outside the restrictive period using contract length etc. So in a sense arguably they manipulated the market value of Buddy at that point in time due to contract length of 9 years on big money etc..

For example I would have thought Hawks should have been able to match and keep Buddy for 2 years till the 10th year paying 900k.

Buddy would want the 9 year deal but AFL HQ, to avoid legal actions etc should allow possible future FA compo deals. Eg Buddy at Hawks for 2 years then goes to Swans in 2 years eg end of 2015.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

A player is restrictive FA for 2 years. After 10 years Buddy was non restrictive FA.

The argument would be Swans manipulated the trade value of Buddy via the FA compo by incorporating contract terms in the period outside the restrictive period using contract length etc. So in a sense arguably they manipulated the market value of Buddy at that point in time due to contract length of 9 years on big money etc..

For example I would have thought Hawks should have been able to match and keep Buddy for 2 years till the 10th year paying 900k.

Buddy would want the 9 year deal but AFL HQ, to avoid legal actions etc should allow possible future FA compo deals. Eg Buddy at Hawks for 2 years then goes to Swans in 2 years eg end of 2015.

You're over-complicating beyond belief what is a fairly straight forward system. Judas Franklin was a restricted free agent - to match the deal we had to match the length and value of the deal.

Because Sydney can legally cheat the cap through COLA and amabasdor payments - they were able to offer sums of money to Judas that only GWS and Sydney could even dare offer at that time. We couldn't even say we would match the offer in order to force a trade because the AFL would have every right to ask how we could possibly afford it. It was a ploy to stop us going for a trade. It happens a lot in the NBA - teams want a player so deliberately structure deals their current teams can't match so have to give the player up - happened with Jeremy Lin when he went from New York to Houston on a massive front-loaded deal. Bit then on the arse though when it turned out Lin was a half-season wonder.

 

[Mr Magic]

You have to match the deal as per below:

A contract offer is matched if the football payments and ASAs are equivalent under the offer and the contract proposed by the player’s current club. To qualify as a matching offer, the player’s current club must make an offer on the same terms as the new offer tabled by the player including:

• Contract length;
• Base payments;
• Total match payments;
• Total ASA payments.

Sydney did the 9 year staggered contract to completely shut us out of matching the offer and trying to negotiate a trade. It was a snake move by Franklin, Pickering and Sydney and a big reason why most Hawks fans hate all 3 with the fire of a sun.

IMO I am not sure that does not breach trade provisions of a free market.

Where I am coming from is such a framework manipulates trade value and therefore market values so clubs arguably are not operating in free and fair market conditions.

IMO Hawks might be able to seek compensation if courts felt their was market abuse in regards to trade restraints.

For example Buddy salary could be matched but for list restrictions, cap restrictions separate over time restraint trade away from Buddy's true market value at the relevant point in time. Buddy's true market value arguably can only be discovery during a normalised market where manipulation was not present in the form of contract length.

For example the commodity of Buddy is not necessarily for a 9 year period. The abnormal contract length itself is a restraint of trade arguably perverting the trade value of Buddy as a restrictive FA.

I would have thought the last seven years of Buddy's contract is not relevant to Buddy as a restrictive FA and should have no influence on Buddy's trade value as a restrictive FA.

The last 7 years of Buddy's contract is only relevant when Buddy is a non restrictive FA. I would have thought. Therefore to be fair Buddy can have a nfine year contract but if Hawks matched the first 2 years he should have played for the Hawks and Hawks get FA compo end of 2015. This would be fairer and more equitable for all clubs in the comp so that Hawks and others get a better realisation of FA compo value even allowing for adjustments for ladder position etc...

Another scenario is another club takes Buddy for 2 years in the restrictive period trading with Hawthorn as Hawks matched them and Swans then need to trade for the new club to get him for the final 7 years of this hypothetical period

IMO the Swans abused/manipulated the restrictive FA value of Buddy adversely affecting the Hawks by offering a contract of a length that perverted the price discovery of Buddy as a restrictive FA through the length of thecontract as well as the use of a period when Buddy would in fact be a non restrictive FA

 

[Ned Ryerson]

IMO I am not sure that does not breach trade provisions of a free market.

Where I am coming from is such a framework manipulates trade value and therefore market values so clubs arguably are not operating in free and fair market conditions.

IMO Hawks might be able to seek compensation if courts felt their was market abuse in regards to trade restraints.

For example Buddy salary could be matched but for list restrictions, cap restrictions separate over time restraint trade away from Buddy's true market value at the relevant point in time. Buddy's true market value arguably can only be discovery during a normalised market where manipulation was not present in the form of contract length.

For example the commodity of Buddy is not necessarily for a 9 year period. The abnormal contract length itself is a restraint of trade arguably perverting the trade value of Buddy as a restrictive FA.

I would have thought the last seven years of Buddy's contract is not relevant to Buddy as a restrictive FA and should have no influence on Buddy's trade value as a restrictive FA.

The last 7 years of Buddy's contract is only relevant when Buddy is a non restrictive FA. I would have thought. Therefore to be fair Buddy can have a nfine year contract but if Hawks matched the first 2 years he should have played for the Hawks and Hawks get FA compo end of 2015. This would be fairer and more equitable for all clubs in the comp so that Hawks and others get a better realisation of FA compo value even allowing for adjustments for ladder position etc...

Refer to my post above - if Joe Bloggs is a restricted free agent and plays for Team A - Team B offers him a 25 year deal worth $30M - Team A has to match that offer, not parts of the offer, not magic beans, not the team mascot and some massage tables - you have to match the offer or the player goes as they wish.

And the AFL draft could be challenged for restraint of trade - the NSWRL had their draft rendered pointless after a player got drafted but wanted to play elsewhere - the courts ruled it was restraint of trade. There's precedence - clubs aren't stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds them though.

We got all the compensation we needed when we won the grand final last year and Buddy was sulking on the team bus while we did a lap of honour.

 

[Mr Magic]

Refer to my post above - if Joe Bloggs is a restricted freand plays for Team A - Team B offers him a 25 year deal worth $30M - Team A has to match that offer, not parts of the offer, not magic beans, not the team mascot and some massage tables - you have to match the offer or the player goes as they wish.

And the AFL draft could be challenged for restraint of trade - the NSWRL had their draft rendered pointless after a player got drafted but wanted to play elsewhere - the courts ruled it was restraint of trade. There's precedence - clubs aren't stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds them though.

We got all the compensation we needed when we won the grand final last year and Buddy was sulking on the team bus while we did a lap of honour.

What I am getting at is you did not receive compensation value for Buddy as a restrictive FA.

You in fact received arguably compensation for Buddy as a non restrictive FA even though he was a restrictive FA. Not sure the legal argument would reflect the will of the people in a free and fair market on this issue in a legislative court though.

Furthermore , arguably the Swans blocked other clubs entering the bidding process for Buddy as a nonrestrictive FA in 2 years time to the detriment of Hawthorn in terms of trade value price discovery by arguably manipulating the market of Buddy as a restrictive FA potentially abusing the competion fair play guidelines arguably.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

What I am getting at is you did not receive compensation value for Buddy as a restrictive FA.

You in fact received arguably compensation for Buddy as a non restrictive FA even though he was a restrictive FA. Not sure the legal argument would reflect the will of the people in a free and fair market on this issue in a legislative court though.

Furthermore , arguably the Swans blocked other clubs entering the bidding process for Buddy as a nonrestrictive FA in 2 years time to the detriment of Hawthorn by manipulating the market of Buddy as a restrictive FA potentially abusing the competion fair play guidelines arguably.

We would have been better compensated via a trade - but that's the shitty reality of free agency, particularly if you lose a player just after winning a premiership.

Whether a player will be an unrestricted free agent does not even remotely matter. If a player is a restricted free agent come the end of the season then the rules apply - clubs can choose to match.

You are honestly over-complicating a system that isn't all that complicated.

 

[spudmaster]

Just saw this on LinkedIn and was surprised to learn that Bucky finished up with us in July and is looking around for work.

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/gary-buckenara/51/b0/31?trk=pub-pbmap

Wonder why. Looking to mix things up after nearly 16 years perhaps?

Also note that it's "Hawthorn Football Club" compared to "Sydney Swans Ltd". One is a footy club and the other is a plastic franchise.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...tels-the-recruit/story-fni5f22o-1227462156863

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Enough of this Franklin talk.

Let's get back to sheepishly hoping that Dangerfield names Hawthorn as his preferred home and we subsequently get to watch Geelong fans go ape droppings.

 

[Big A]

Enough of this Franklin talk.

Let's get back to sheepishly hoping that Dangerfield names Hawthorn as his preferred home and we subsequently get to watch Geelong fans go ape droppings.

Can u imagine the meltdown if we got Danger AND Motlop hehehe

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Well that was a waste of money

100% 1 million of the salary cap spent pretty awfully.

 

[Crankyhawk]

IMO I am not sure that does not breach trade provisions of a free market.

Where I am coming from is such a framework manipulates trade value and therefore market values so clubs arguably are not operating in free and fair market conditions.

IMO Hawks might be able to seek compensation if courts felt their was market abuse in regards to trade restraints.

For example Buddy salary could be matched but for list restrictions, cap restrictions separate over time restraint trade away from Buddy's true market value at the relevant point in time. Buddy's true market value arguably can only be discovery during a normalised market where manipulation was not present in the form of contract length.

For example the commodity of Buddy is not necessarily for a 9 year period. The abnormal contract length itself is a restraint of trade arguably perverting the trade value of Buddy as a restrictive FA.

I would have thought the last seven years of Buddy's contract is not relevant to Buddy as a restrictive FA and should have no influence on Buddy's trade value as a restrictive FA.

The last 7 years of Buddy's contract is only relevant when Buddy is a non restrictive FA. I would have thought. Therefore to be fair Buddy can have a nfine year contract but if Hawks matched the first 2 years he should have played for the Hawks and Hawks get FA compo end of 2015. This would be fairer and more equitable for all clubs in the comp so that Hawks and others get a better realisation of FA compo value even allowing for adjustments for ladder position etc...

Another scenario is another club takes Buddy for 2 years in the restrictive period trading with Hawthorn as Hawks matched them and Swans then need to trade for the new club to get him for the final 7 years of this hypothetical period

IMO the Swans abused/manipulated the restrictive FA value of Buddy adversely affecting the Hawks by offering a contract of a length that perverted the price discovery of Buddy as a restrictive FA through the length of thecontract as well as the use of a period when Buddy would in fact be a non restrictive FA

I think any such case would be thrown out under the argument of "you are participating in a game, run by the AFL, therefore a condition of your participation is to submit to the rules and regulations of the AFL". Meaning that fair play, justice, the law haw no bearing.