Resource 2024 AFL Draft discussion thread (Wed Nov 20 to Fri Nov 22)

[PoholkMe10]

Vader if we delist a player tomorrow, pay them out and then fail to draft a replacement and re-rookie the player we delist on the same salary - do we have to pay them double the wage effectively?

You mentioned if someone else paid their wage in a future year we wouldn't have to pay it?

Ill take a crack

They don't get paid out until they aren't picked up again – by us or someone else.

If we delist say smith and rookie him, he comes back in on the same contract. (this is what will happen)
If someone else picks smith up, we pay whatever we owed him less his salary with the new club. (definitely won't happen)
If no one picks him up and we draft someone else, we pay him out the full amount. (also won't happen)

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Absolutely bonkas that we don’t have flexibility of another list spot heading into the draft

 

[Vader]

Vader if we delist a player tomorrow, pay them out and then fail to draft a replacement and re-rookie the player we delist on the same salary - do we have to pay them double the wage effectively?

You mentioned if someone else paid their wage in a future year we wouldn't have to pay it?

No. If we re-draft them as a rookie then they just resume their previous contract - and there's no payout to be considered.

Players don't get "paid out" immediately, though any "pay out" money needs to be included in our 2024 salary cap.

 

[King Patty]

It would make sense to delist someone and add them as a rookie to free up a national draft list spot.

Just gives crows options on draft night to trade back into the draft if theres a guy whose still on the board they rate like Angus Clarke or Ned Bowman.

 

[Big Dub]

Vader if we delist a player tomorrow, pay them out and then fail to draft a replacement and re-rookie the player we delist on the same salary - do we have to pay them double the wage effectively?

You mentioned if someone else paid their wage in a future year we wouldn't have to pay it?

The only reason that we have to pay them anything is through breach of contract.

Legally, we are only obliged to pay them their loss or damage. This generally means what we would have paid them. It could include non-monetary claims (then qualified in monetary terms), but this would be difficult to claim where we had no intention of playing them in the AFL etc.

Any amount that they receive instead of what we were going to pay them is deducted, as it reduces their loss or damage (you cannot keep both, as this would be unjust enrichment).

We could voluntarily agree a different amount if other terms suited both parties (like we assumedly did with Stengle).

How the AFL treats the payout is governed by them, so will leave it to Vader for that.

 

[Betts are off]

Sadly, it would appear so

We have different definitions of the word 'Sadly'

 

[Draft Bored]

No. If we re-draft them as a rookie then they just resume their previous contract - and there's no payout to be considered.

Players don't get "paid out" immediately, though any "pay out" money needs to be included in our 2024 salary cap.

Erm. Why aren't we doing this just for the flexibility? I guess it's a bit of a kick in the balls for the delisted player having to wait to see if they're playing next year but realistically if part of the deal was Smith got to play SANFL next year on the list or off for the same dollars then it's not too severe.

I guess we would also have a read on the likelyhood of a trade being possble. Maybe it's just not realistic.

 

[DJ75]

Absolutely bonkas that we don’t have flexibility of another list spot heading into the draft

One of the big failings of the year.
Even if we just upgraded a rookie and then re-drafted a delisted player onto the rookie list, at least we would have had the option to do something on draft night. Why we keep on tying our own hands behind our backs I will never understand.

 

[George Kramer]

Absolutely bonkas that we don’t have flexibility of another list spot heading into the draft

It’s ****ed. It’s a short sighted approach to keep as much experience on the list because that’s what they are using an excuse for our shit season.

Schoenberg should be cut, how he fits in with the mids we have is questionable and I’ve liked him.
Smith gone is a no brainer. Make it clear he would be playing SANFL with zero chance of a game. Come to a settlement, put him on the SANFL list.
Burgess delist. He’s no good, I don’t care about using him as depth, go smaller in the forward line if you have to.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

It’s ****ed. It’s a short sighted approach to keep as much experience on the list because that’s what they are using an excuse for our shit season.

Schoenberg should be cut, how he fits in with the mids we have is questionable and I’ve liked him.
Smith gone is a no brainer. Make it clear he would be playing SANFL with zero chance of a game. Come to a settlement, put him on the SANFL list.
Burgess delist. He’s no good, I don’t care about using him as depth, go smaller in the forward line if you have to.

Smith was the one , we have a plethora of half backs and he’s done

Schoenberg , yeah he prob won’t make it now but they gave him time post Achilles as 1st year post Achilles is always difficult , Peatling coming though means we don’t need Schoenberg ( especially after re signing Berr )

No issue with burgess , need a tall , the sanfl needs a tall to help the young guys in any case and have a decent structure at the level . He will prob kick a goal a game at afl level but hopefully not required

 

[Mutineer]

Absolutely bonkas that we don’t have flexibility of another list spot heading into the draft

I think personally we really didn't think Peatling was a serious chance of selecting the Crows until it was too late. I know I thought we were no chance until Cumming nominated us?

 

[Jeffcrowe]

I think personally we really didn't think Peatling was a serious chance of selecting the Crows until it was too late. I know I thought we were no chance until Cumming nominated us?

Yeah I get that but it shows you need to plan better and be flexible

There could have been other players delisted we were keen on or imagine Dodson gettint to 40 and we can’t trade in to get him

Even having a list spot open and train on players competing for it would make more sense if we didn’t use it in draft

 

[Vader]

Erm. Why aren't we doing this just for the flexibility? I guess it's a bit of a kick in the balls for the delisted player having to wait to see if they're playing next year but realistically if part of the deal was Smith got to play SANFL next year on the list or off for the same dollars then it's not too severe.

I guess we would also have a read on the likelyhood of a trade being possble. Maybe it's just not realistic.

We need to delist 2 players today, re-drafting them in the RD, just to meet the AFL's mandatory 3 draft selection rule.

We aren't going to be delisting players speculatively, without committing to re-drafting them, because we'd have to pay out their future salaries in the 2024 salary cap, which has mostly been spent already.

 

[Vader]

One of the big failings of the year.
Even if we just upgraded a rookie and then re-drafted a delisted player onto the rookie list, at least we would have had the option to do something on draft night. Why we keep on tying our own hands behind our backs I will never understand.

Upgrading a rookie & re-drafting a delisted player onto the rookie list doesn't create any additional options on draft night. It's a zero-sum game. The fundamental problem is that we currently have 40 of 42 list positions filled, shuffling them between lists doesn't change that

 

[George Kramer]

We need to delist 2 players today, re-drafting them in the RD, just to meet the AFL's mandatory 3 draft selection rule.

We aren't going to be delisting players speculatively, without committing to re-drafting them, because we'd have to pay out their future salaries in the 2024 salary cap, which has mostly been spent already.

We went after Redman, other targets and got only Burgess. If we are running at close to 100% cap in 2024 I’d be shocked.

Sure we could have rejigged contracts, so which players did we re-sign before the start of 2024?

 

[Danger in Texas]

Smith was the one , we have a plethora of half backs and he’s done

Schoenberg , yeah he prob won’t make it now but they gave him time post Achilles as 1st year post Achilles is always difficult , Peatling coming though means we don’t need Schoenberg ( especially after re signing Berr )

No issue with burgess , need a tall , the sanfl needs a tall to help the young guys in any case and have a decent structure at the level . He will prob kick a goal a game at afl level but hopefully not required

I understand Schoenberg/Burgess as both are contracted, but both were big errors in how long we signed them for

Smith in a similar boat, but moreso a communication fault as he absolutely shouldn’t have been played to his trigger. Reid should’ve communicated this to Nicks

Out of the OOC guys, the one that shouldn’t have been re-signed given the circumstances was Berry, especially since we’ve gone and got Peatling

 

[George Kramer]

I understand Schoenberg/Burgess as both are contracted, but both were big errors in how long we signed them for

Smith in a similar boat, but moreso a communication fault as he absolutely shouldn’t have been played to his trigger. Reid should’ve communicated this to Nicks

Out of the OOC guys, the one that shouldn’t have been re-signed given the circumstances was Berry, especially since we’ve gone and got Peatling

lol, you don’t reckon Nicks knew what Smiths trigger was? Cmon mate, out of the Reid and Nicks one is clearly more competent than the other.

 

[Danger in Texas]

lol, you don’t reckon Nicks knew what Smiths trigger was? Cmon mate, out of the Reid and Nicks one is clearly more competent than the other.

I mean, that’s not Nicks’ job. Now it’s still bullshit that he played Smith so much, as he should’ve been dropped much earlier than he was, but I don’t think that he had his contract in mind

 

[DJ75]

Upgrading a rookie & re-drafting a delisted player onto the rookie list doesn't create any additional options on draft night. It's a zero-sum game. The fundamental problem is that we currently have 40 of 42 list positions filled, shuffling them between lists doesn't change that

Yeh sorry, I didn't explain that well.
I'm suggesting we should have 39 list spots filled (by having delisted an extra player), then with the extra spot, we could use it in the draft, OR we could have just upgraded a rookie and put the delisted player back on the rookie list.

It would have at least given us an option on draft night. As it is, we have restricted ourselves for no good reason.

 

[George Kramer]

I mean, that’s not Nicks’ job. Now it’s still bullshit that he played Smith so much, as he should’ve been dropped much earlier than he was, but I don’t think that he had his contract in mind

Well he should have. He could see his form and would have known about the trigger.

 

[Draft Bored]

I'm so bored.

 

[Draft Bored]

Damn it sounds like Port are trying to get in on the Richmond move up to 2. Gets them to 10.

Saint's deal is 7 + F1 for 2... and I got laughed out of the building for suggesting sliding our F1 to F2.

 

[Mutineer]

Yeah I get that but it shows you need to plan better and be flexible

There could have been other players delisted we were keen on or imagine Dodson gettint to 40 and we can’t trade in to get him

Even having a list spot open and train on players competing for it would make more sense if we didn’t use it in draft

I don't know what your feelings were for this year's draft but at the end of the U18's 2023 season I certainly didn't have the feel for the absolute depth this draft appears to have. My feel after watching the U17's Futures Grand Final day was the 1st round certainly looked quality but so many not seriously on the radar have elevated this year, take Alixzander Tauru and Alex Dodson virtual unknowns before the season started and there's plenty of others. I don't think Dodson even played footy last year, certainly not in the U18's comp.

 

[Mutineer]

I understand Schoenberg/Burgess as both are contracted, but both were big errors in how long we signed them for

Smith in a similar boat, but moreso a communication fault as he absolutely shouldn’t have been played to his trigger. Reid should’ve communicated this to Nicks

Out of the OOC guys, the one that shouldn’t have been re-signed given the circumstances was Berry, especially since we’ve gone and got Peatling

Berry was re-signed end of August I highly doubt we thought we were a shot at Peatling at that point.

 

[Mostyn]

Damn it sounds like Port are trying to get in on the Richmond move up to 2. Gets them to 10.

Saint's deal is 7 + F1 for 2... and I got laughed out of the building for suggesting sliding our F1 to F2.

View attachment 2155078

Yours was a terrible idea though.

There's a top tier of 4 or 5 mids. Then there's Tauru and maybe Smillie.

The Saints were potentially sitting in that next tier. Getting up the order makes sense