Traded #26 Luke Parker

[Kennedy Parker]

Luke Parker
Luke Parker

26

Luke Parker

Age

32

Ht

183cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

24.2

5star

K

12.6

5star

HB

11.6

5star

M

3.8

4star

T

5.6

5star

CL

5.8

5star

D

22.1

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

9.9

5star

M

3.9

4star

T

5.0

5star

CL

5.5

5star

D

21.2

5star

K

11.4

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

8.0

5star

CL

5.2

5star

has plenty of football ahead and has already compiled a resume packed with impressive achievements. Since landing at the Sydney Swans via the 2010 AFL Draft, he has won a 2012 premiership medal, earned All Australian selection and won two Bob Skilton medals. In 2015, he was added to the club’s leadership group at the age of just 22, and has led the team as a co-captain alongside Josh Kennedy and Dane Rampe

24

Dane Rampe

Age

34

Ht

187cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.0

4star

K

10.6

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

2.5

4star

MG

358.8

5star

D

14.1

3star

K

9.0

4star

HB

5.1

3star

M

3.4

3star

T

1.5

2star

MG

284.5

4star

D

10.6

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.4

4star

since 2019. While Parker is among the league’s elite midfielders, his strong marking and expert game awareness make him a genuine threat when rotating through the forward line.

Luke Parker

26

Luke Parker

Age

32

Ht

183cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

24.2

5star

K

12.6

5star

HB

11.6

5star

M

3.8

4star

T

5.6

5star

CL

5.8

5star

D

22.1

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

9.9

5star

M

3.9

4star

T

5.0

5star

CL

5.5

5star

D

21.2

5star

K

11.4

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

8.0

5star

CL

5.2

5star

DOB: 25 October 1992
DEBUT: 2011
DRAFT: #40, 2010 National Draft
RECRUITED FROM: Langwarrin (Vic)/Dandenong U18

Luke Parker | AFL

Follow Luke Parker's progress through AFL

www.sydneyswans.com.au

 

[Kbroome]

It is, but it feels a bit funny to be doing. And it's also only saved if we're using the saving productively - are we? Whole thing just feels strange.

And if we're JUST paying him $100k (understand you were just plucking a number) then why can't North afford that? They're hardly bursting at the seams of their cap..

Think 1 of two reasons why we are paying 100k
1. Makes no difference to us paying the money this year so it guaranteed us pick 44 rather than a jumble of picks.
2. Goodwill to Parker for his service to honour the last year of his Swans deal.

Personally lean more towards 1 being the reason than 2 tbh

 

[Dubai Quacker]

So we pushed him out to save money but are still paying him money? Nice.

It’s an advance on his coaching gig in 2028.

 

[Tedeski]

It is, but it feels a bit funny to be doing. And it's also only saved if we're using the saving productively - are we? Whole thing just feels strange.

And if we're JUST paying him $100k (understand you were just plucking a number) then why can't North afford that? They're hardly bursting at the seams of their cap..

Because Dyl Stephens is taking a fair chunk of their cap.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

So we pushed him out to save money but are still paying him money? Nice.

 

[Cadsky]

View attachment 2151163

FTFY

 

[GoTheSwannies]

FTFY
View attachment 2151194

Make it a toastie derp and you win the internet

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So we pushed him out to save money but are still paying him money? Nice.

Probably the reason we got pick 44 is paying a portion it’s the way these things work. We wanted the contract off our books as realistically Cleary should be playing in that role r1 next season.

 

[ShireSwan]

It is, but it feels a bit funny to be doing. And it's also only saved if we're using the saving productively - are we? Whole thing just feels strange.

And if we're JUST paying him $100k (understand you were just plucking a number) then why can't North afford that? They're hardly bursting at the seams of their cap..

I'm sure it was explained earlier in the thread, but we back-ended his contract money to fit with our cap over the first two years of his deal. We are going to be paying the difference between his average and the back-ended amount due next year.

ie if he signed a 3 year deal for $1.5 two years ago and we only paid him $800k over the first two years, and we now owed $700k in the final year, we are paying the $200k and Norf are paying the $500k.

Seems like a fair arrangement to me.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Such a fine line between 3 and 4 years in a player career as they approach 30

 

[SM]

I'm sure it was explained earlier in the thread, but we back-ended his contract money to fit with our cap over the first two years of his deal. We are going to be paying the difference between his average and the back-ended amount due next year.

ie if he signed a 3 year deal for $1.5 two years ago and we only paid him $800k over the first two years, and we now owed $700k in the final year, we are paying the $200k and Norf are paying the $500k.

Seems like a fair arrangement to me.

A fair arrangement is paying a player for playing for you. If north want him they inherit his contract.

 

[caesar88]

The trade seemed more Parker-initiated than club-initiated, so it reads to me like we did what we needed to do to get the deal done. Pretty standard IMO.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

The trade seemed more Parker-initiated than club-initiated, so it reads to me like we did what we needed to do to get the deal done. Pretty standard IMO.

It actually would of been funny if we held him to his contract as Parker was the one that stalled and was pushing for the extra year.

 

[Kiama Chris]

It actually would of been funny if we held him to his contract as Parker was the one that stalled and was pushing for the extra year.

A year in VFL? Unpleasant.

 

[SM]

A year in VFL? Unpleasant.

Why would he have spent the year in the VFL?

 

[Bandit55]

A fair arrangement is paying a player for playing for you. If north want him they inherit his contract.

Difficult for us to ask for that given Brodie Grundy’s arrangements.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SM]

Difficult for us to ask for that given Brodie Grundy’s arrangements.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Not really? Completely different situation. North are giving Parker a pay rise, Melbourne wanted Grundy off their books.

 

[caesar88]

It actually would of been funny if we held him to his contract as Parker was the one that stalled and was pushing for the extra year.

I was as much a critic of that contract at the time as anyone (compounded of course by the double-whammy of losing Hewett & Dawson.)

However I am very glad we did right by Parker. I think he would've ended up playing reserves footy and struggling to get interest from a rival club or a contract extension worth anything remotely decent from us.

Was the extra year he wanted annoying, sure. Not rob-the-guy-of-two-extra-years-of-his-career-and-income annoying though. Instead now the deal is done and everyone's happy.

 

[.Shotties.]

I loved Luke from the start, but he's the enemy now. He'd better pray when we meet on the street I don't have my nunchucks on me.

 

[Millky95]

Why? This isn't uncommon at all amongst clubs now, we take a hit for one year and move on. We're not even paying the full amount - just the difference.

Sorry Ticky been meaning to reply for a while, just busy.

We laughed at Collingwood for paying Grundy's contract at other clubs. We should be laughed at for paying part of Parker's. We lose a player that was considered B22 for a year when he is contracted and pay him to play at another club.

Just another reason we are a joke, imo

 

[zyzzbruh]

A fair arrangement is paying a player for playing for you. If north want him they inherit his contract.

Does't work like that. Imagine hypothetically the contract was that we wouldn't have payed Parker a penny for the last couple of years, whereby we would pay him 2.5 mil at the end of year 3. - so what you're saying is the new club should inherit the whole value of the contract and cover our share of his value meaning he plays with us for free?

If North inherited the whole contract they would essentially be paying the difference in his value to us for his previous 2 years. Basically they would be paying him a portion of the years he played for us...

We're only paying the difference across x amount of years in relation to his value across the whole contract - it's been done to death not sure why people aren't understanding this. The contract was constructed that way to purely flex our way around the cap, nothing else. We're not paying anything extra, we're simply back paying Parker what we owe him.

 

[kelpie_X]

The trade seemed more Parker-initiated than club-initiated, so it reads to me like we did what we needed to do to get the deal done. Pretty standard IMO.

If Parker wanted to leave, he's breaking his contract (possibly). Ergo we pay nothing more of it.

 

[SM]

Does't work like that. Imagine hypothetically the contract was that we wouldn't have payed Parker a penny for the last couple of years, whereby we would pay him 2.5 mil at the end of year 3. - so what you're saying is the new club should inherit the whole value of the contract and cover our share of his value meaning he plays with us for free?

If North inherited the whole contract they would essentially be paying the difference in his value to us for his previous 2 years. Basically they would be paying him a portion of the years he played for us...

We're only paying the difference across x amount of years in relation to his value across the whole contract - it's been done to death not sure why people aren't understanding this. The contract was constructed that way to purely flex our way around the cap, nothing else. We're not paying anything extra, we're simply back paying Parker what we owe him.

So you're suggesting any player traded under contract is still being paid by their former club?

 

[SM]

Sorry Ticky been meaning to reply for a while, just busy.

We laughed at Collingwood for paying Grundy's contract at other clubs. We should be laughed at for paying part of Parker's. We lose a player that was considered B22 for a year when he is contracted and pay him to play at another club.

Just another reason we are a joke, imo

Spot on.

 

[bedford]

I loved Luke from the start, but he's the enemy now. He'd better pray when we meet on the street I don't have my nunchucks on me.

Happy for you to use them

 

[zyzzbruh]

So you're suggesting any player traded under contract is still being paid by their former club?

If their contract is heavily back ended, then absolutely yes.