Rumour 2022 Rumour Discussion Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Draft will always be a fizzer.
Fact is there's no hype because nobody knows who these kids are.

Its not like the NBA or NFL where you've followed these dudes for 2-3 years at college level before they make a pro team.

Yet another reason the draft age should be increased by a year.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Yet another reason the draft age should be increased by a year.
It's a tough one. Sometimes the most important years as a young footballer are 19-20 and you see players develop rapidly simply because they are playing AFL. If they don't have access to AFL club facilities and GameDay experience there's every chance those types don't reach the heights of the current day elites.
 
Wouldn't make sense to me for Berg to sign with us and ask for a trade.
Would decrease his chances of getting to Freo
I just figure, Freo weren't expecting the mass exodus they may be having, so re-visiting it, and will have to pay more now.

As always, about 1% of this is always correct. But it is a rumour thread.
 
I just figure, Freo weren't expecting the mass exodus they may be having, so re-visiting it, and will have to pay more now.

As always, about 1% of this is always correct. But it is a rumour thread.
Of course. Unless it heavily assists us in getting Rankine, or positioning ourselves for a crack at JHF next year, I don't see the club wanting to lose him for depth purposes.
 
Of course. Unless it heavily assists us in getting Rankine, or positioning ourselves for a crack at JHF next year, I don't see the club wanting to lose him for depth purposes.
My hubby thought the crows strategy was to sign Berg up to make him more valuable should a trade be offered? Perhaps we are looking to do a swap with Cox (who is also contracted).
 
My hubby thought the crows strategy was to sign Berg up to make him more valuable should a trade be offered? Perhaps we are looking to do a swap with Cox (who is also contracted).
That would make sense for us. Doesn't make a lot of sense to Himmelburg.
He would know halfway through the year whether Freo had offered him a contract.
 
I just figure, Freo weren't expecting the mass exodus they may be having, so re-visiting it, and will have to pay more now.

As always, about 1% of this is always correct. But it is a rumour thread.
They might have realised that Lobb will have to be traded. Straight replacement for them.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Wouldn't make sense to me for Berg to sign with us and ask for a trade.
Would decrease his chances of getting to Freo

Writing is on the wall for Fremantle, Lobb is gone and they're looking for a replacement.

Go have a look at Himmelbergs v Lobb's statistics at the same age (24). The only stat that Lobb comprehensively beats Himmelberg on is Hit Outs, because Tex does most of that work up front. Himmelberg has Lobb for goals scored on average at the same age, and they are equal in contested marks in the F50.


AFL literally came out just yesterday(through their mouthpiece Twomey) and announced they would be relaxing their views around salary cap dumps, making it easier for teams like us to cover salaries of players moving to other clubs, and for clubs with tight salary caps to incentive us to do so by offering higher draft picks. It would also give us an incentive us to take on player contracts from other clubs to help with their salary caps.


I hypothesised a few weeks ago that we may have done this in signing Himmelberg for 2 years, essentially giving us the right to on-trade him, cover his salary for a few years whilst we're probably struggling to pay the min 95% salary cap, and attract a better draft pick as a result. Although i'm not sure why we wouldn't have done this with Frampton, considering it's well known the Pies salary cap position is tight.
 
Writing is on the wall for Fremantle, Lobb is gone and they're looking for a replacement.

Go have a look at Himmelbergs v Lobb's statistics at the same age (24). The only stat that Lobb comprehensively beats Himmelberg on is Hit Outs, because Tex does most of that work up front. Himmelberg has Lobb for goals scored on average at the same age, and they are equal in contested marks in the F50.


AFL literally came out just yesterday(through their mouthpiece Twomey) and announced they would be relaxing their views around salary cap dumps, making it easier for teams like us to cover salaries of players moving to other clubs, and for clubs with tight salary caps to incentive us to do so by offering higher draft picks. It would also give us an incentive us to take on player contracts from other clubs to help with their salary caps.


I hypothesised a few weeks ago that we may have done this in signing Himmelberg for 2 years, essentially giving us the right to on-trade him, cover his salary for a few years whilst we're probably struggling to pay the min 95% salary cap, and attract a better draft pick as a result. Although i'm not sure why we wouldn't have done this with Frampton, considering it's well known the Pies salary cap position is tight.
I recall a rule that you can't trade a player in the first year of a contract, so that might rule out a Himmelberg trade.

But I don't know of a rule that you can't pay the salary of an uncontracted player as part of a trade. Not that Frampton would be on much, but every bit might help the pies.
 
I recall a rule that you can't trade a player in the first year of a contract, so that might rule out a Himmelberg trade.

But I don't know of a rule that you can't pay the salary of an uncontracted player as part of a trade. Not that Frampton would be on much, but every bit might help the pies.

I'm not aware of either of those rules existing, but happy to be proven wrong.
 
Writing is on the wall for Fremantle, Lobb is gone and they're looking for a replacement.

Go have a look at Himmelbergs v Lobb's statistics at the same age (24). The only stat that Lobb comprehensively beats Himmelberg on is Hit Outs, because Tex does most of that work up front. Himmelberg has Lobb for goals scored on average at the same age, and they are equal in contested marks in the F50.


AFL literally came out just yesterday(through their mouthpiece Twomey) and announced they would be relaxing their views around salary cap dumps, making it easier for teams like us to cover salaries of players moving to other clubs, and for clubs with tight salary caps to incentive us to do so by offering higher draft picks. It would also give us an incentive us to take on player contracts from other clubs to help with their salary caps.


I hypothesised a few weeks ago that we may have done this in signing Himmelberg for 2 years, essentially giving us the right to on-trade him, cover his salary for a few years whilst we're probably struggling to pay the min 95% salary cap, and attract a better draft pick as a result. Although i'm not sure why we wouldn't have done this with Frampton, considering it's well known the Pies salary cap position is tight.
It's just the AFL paving the way for Richmond to grab Green and Toranto for way unders, they will be absolute guns in that Richmond set up..
Rankine is still expected to cost us 2 first rounders though? 😠
 
Not sure where to put this but has anyone any idea of when we will announce our delisting's. Seems like other clubs are moving faster than us.
 
Last edited:
I recall a rule that you can't trade a player in the first year of a contract, so that might rule out a Himmelberg trade.

But I don't know of a rule that you can't pay the salary of an uncontracted player as part of a trade. Not that Frampton would be on much, but every bit might help the pies.
Didn't Schache re-sign with the Lions weeks prior to being traded to the Dogs a few years back?
 
I recall a rule that you can't trade a player in the first year of a contract, so that might rule out a Himmelberg trade.

But I don't know of a rule that you can't pay the salary of an uncontracted player as part of a trade. Not that Frampton would be on much, but every bit might help the pies.
AFL list management and trading rules: https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do.../Amended-AFL-Rules-effective-2-March-2022.pdf

Do you mean Rule 9.5 that effectively says a player cannot be traded twice during the annual trade period.

For example we trade for Rankine with GCS for Draft Picks, but then find out that Norf are really keen to trade JHF and that they really like the look of Rankine. We can’t then on-trade Rankine to North this year in an exchange likely including picks. We’d have to wait 12 months to swap Rankine for JHF assuming both parties were willing to move.
 
Wouldn't make sense to me for Berg to sign with us and ask for a trade.
Would decrease his chances of getting to Freo
Maybe a case of he didn't have a firm offer from Freo, had one from us, so took it with the understanding that if Freo came calling and the price was right we'd move him? Otherwise we were happy to keep him as a depth piece.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Rumour 2022 Rumour Discussion Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top