Rumour 2024 Hypothetical trade and FA Thread

[Strapping Young Lad]

2024 Picks



2025 Picks

 

[cryptor]

we have to be having a crack at Caleb Daniel clearly on the outer and is an absolute gun

Would really help bring down our average height.

 

[TylerDurden]

Would really help bring down our average height.

Imagine Daniel on Wiz in the intra clubs? Would be a sight.

 

[Iceman!]

They can only do that if they can afford to. If we offered first 3 years at 1.5 and then extend at $1 million a year for next 3 I don't think they can match.

I would be surprised if they didn’t come the end of the year have that vacant ready to match any offers.

Even if he wants to come (unlikely) it will be a trade, they are not letting him walk.

 

[play2win]

They can only do that if they can afford to. If we offered first 3 years at 1.5 and then extend at $1 million a year for next 3 I don't think they can match.

The exact offer does not need to match, only the total value of the contract. So in theory they could offer a massive back ended deal because they have probably not committed that much to players in years 5-6

 

[Hawker55]

Imagine Daniel on Wiz in the intra clubs? Would be a sight.

Wiz standing next to Lewis in the Cats game was absolutely ridiculous.

 

[FB19]

Got me miffed how Bramble goes past him in one off season.

He’s been Bevo’d. A joke and one we should take advantage of we could use an elite kick inside f50.

 

[Brant]

$1.3m???

Is he though???

 

[Brant]

The exact offer does not need to match, only the total value of the contract. So in theory they could offer a massive back ended deal because they have probably not committed that much to players in years 5-6

Quite sure the exact offer does have to match & the value of the contract is irrelevant.

That's why the whole 'front end the contract' concept has legs - because the existing club simply can't match ~$1.4m for the first 2 years, even if they could match the offered contract's value if spread over 6yrs etc.

 

[cryptor]

$1.3m???

Is he though???

Not sure I'd be going quite that big for a midfielder. Key position, yes.

 

[Brant]

Fits our age bracket. Would be our best outside midfielder by a margin. 1.3m is the new 1m with soft cap upgrades.

I'm 95% sure he's staying though.

$1.3m early, phased over 6+ to equal $950k-$1m p/a or something is fine (IMO).

 

[rei154]

Bulldogs bloke on the radio confident kn Tinglish and JUH, when asked about knowing where Bailey Smith

3

Bailey Smith

Age

24

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

8.5

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.8

5star

CL

2.7

4star

D

19.8

5star

K

9.6

4star

HB

10.2

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.2

4star

CL

3.2

4star

D

14.8

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

7.2

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.4

5star

CL

1.6

4star

is at it was far less clear and a very strong "no" when asked about knowing his intentions... almost too strong

 

[TylerDurden]

Bulldogs bloke on the radio confident kn Tinglish and JUH, when asked about knowing where Bailey Smith is at it was far less clear and a very strong "no" when asked about knowing his intentions... almost too strong

Their List Manager?

 

[play2win]

Quite sure the exact offer does have to match & the value of the contract is irrelevant.

That's why the whole 'front end the contract' concept has legs - because the existing club simply can't match ~$1.4m for the first 2 years, even if they could match the offered contract's value if spread over 6yrs etc.

Yeah I don’t think that’s the case but I’m going off what another poster put up in years gone by so it’s a big maybe?
If what you are saying is correct, capturing a RFA would be easy by simply front loading the first year to the max and almost no other club could match assuming we have the most cap space available in the near term. Which leads me to conclude the original premise, you only need to match the term and total value of the offer.

(There should be other regulations in place to cater for time value of money etc but this is the afl and it wouldn’t be done properly)

 

[Bugs1977]

The exact offer does not need to match, only the total value of the contract. So in theory they could offer a massive back ended deal because they have probably not committed that much to players in years 5-6

Quite sure the exact offer does have to match & the value of the contract is irrelevant.

That's why the whole 'front end the contract' concept has legs - because the existing club simply can't match ~$1.4m for the first 2 years, even if they could match the offered contract's value if spread over 6yrs etc.

Can't see anything around matching the exact $$$ per year. Pretty sure we've had this debate in here before with our previous failed FA quests so someone will eventually chime in.

Free Agency - AFL.com.au

Australian Football League. All the latest AFL news, video, results and information

www.afl.com.au

 

[Brant]

Yeah I don’t think that’s the case but I’m going off what another poster put up in years gone by so it’s a big maybe?
If what you are saying is correct, capturing a RFA would be easy by simply front loading the first year to the max and almost no other club could match assuming we have the most cap space available in the near term. Which leads me to conclude the original premise, you only need to match the term and total value of the offer.

(There should be other regulations in place to cater for time value of money etc but this is the afl and it wouldn’t be done properly)

From AFL website: https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/free-agency

Matching Offers
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;

Total performance incentives based on AFL awards or honours, club best and fairest finish or games played (not including finals). Any incentives for team performance do not have to be matched. A player cannot table an offer to be matched for less than a two-year contract length.



In typical AFL form, it says the terms of the contract must be matched but doesn't clarify whether this means the overall terms or the same annual structure.

I'm quite sure it's the annual structure that must be matched & that once agreed, it can't be re-negotiated.

Hopefully, someone can interpret AFL garbage-speak & give us precedent or definitive feedback.

 

[rei154]

Their List Manager?

Would assume so but I started listening half way through so I don't know for sure

 

[Nugett]

Yeah I don’t think that’s the case but I’m going off what another poster put up in years gone by so it’s a big maybe?
If what you are saying is correct, capturing a RFA would be easy by simply front loading the first year to the max and almost no other club could match assuming we have the most cap space available in the near term. Which leads me to conclude the original premise, you only need to match the term and total value of the offer.

(There should be other regulations in place to cater for time value of money etc but this is the afl and it wouldn’t be done properly)

It’s also the AFL who allowed Geelong not to match Jack Bowes original agreement by extending the money over another 2 years at basically $50k a year. So we know that the AFL will make the rules up to suit their own agenda…

 

[Nugett]

From AFL website: https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/free-agency

Matching Offers
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;

Total performance incentives based on AFL awards or honours, club best and fairest finish or games played (not including finals). Any incentives for team performance do not have to be matched. A player cannot table an offer to be matched for less than a two-year contract length.



In typical AFL form, it says the terms of the contract must be matched but doesn't clarify whether this means the overall terms or the same annual structure.

I'm quite sure it's the annual structure that must be matched & that once agreed, it can't be re-negotiated.

Hopefully, someone can interpret AFL garbage-speak & give us precedent or definitive feedback.

We make the rules up as we go, as we can only write in crayon

 

[Brant]

It’s also the AFL who allowed Geelong not to match Jack Bowes original agreement by extending the money over another 2 years at basically $50k a year. So we know that the AFL will make the rules up to suit their own agenda…

That was via trade, not FA. So long as Bowes ended up better off overall, he'd have been mad not to sign. Geelong weren't obliged to match his existing contract (as they were offering a new contract), at better off overall terms.

In theory, I believe they couldve offered him a worse contract - its then up to him whether he wants to accept it.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Their List Manager?

CEO.

 

[TylerDurden]

CEO.

Gone.

 

[Roger Rogerson]

You just wouldn’t offer Tim English a godfather deal. Not hard enough at it.

 

[Mercy Seat]

You just wouldn’t offer Tim English a godfather deal. Not hard enough at it.

Naughton struggling to justify his godfather deal at the moment too.

 

[FB19]

Naughton struggling to justify his godfather deal at the moment too.

Because he is a defender. He’s also been Bevo’d.

 

[bindas12]

Because he is a defender. He’s also been Bevo’d.

Geez the dogs thread is full of “sack bevo” posts. If he sticks around, any player that prefers positional consistency like Bailey is gone!