Recommitted Andrew Gaff [re-signed]

[TY24]

My post was truly in jest.

Yeah I thought so, can’t be too careful on here though


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TazHawk15]

I guess this is someone else at West Coast training in Subiaco yesterday then?View attachment 560143



On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Have you not heard of Skype.

 

[TazHawk15]

Put Polec, Gaff and Hall in our side, then with a good injury run we are top 10 next year.

Probably.

 

[GreatBradScott]

Have you not heard of Skype.

I have all my coffee's over Skype. Unfortunately it means I'm always paying.

 

[pantskyle]

I guess this is someone else at West Coast training in Subiaco yesterday then?View attachment 560143



On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Clarko is taller than I thought.

 

[TY24]

Have you not heard of Skype.

I’ve heard of Skype, it’s a dated chat platform that next to no one uses anymore.

It’s certainly not a platform you ‘have a coffee with someone’ on.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TazHawk15]

I have all my coffee's over Skype. Unfortunately it means I'm always paying.

How about this proof then. ,
Thanks to Bugs1977 for the image.

Forget about the prices being in Euro, it is a European experience café.

Gaffy looks a tad crestfallen because Clarko is showing him some highlights from the 2015 GF.

One half of the Scott sisters seems a tad annoyed as well.

 

[Hootini]

Huge assumption. Even with those 3 I can't see you leapfrogging us, Richmond, Melbourne, GWS, Collingwood or Sydney. Not to mention Adelaide will be back up and about next season with an easy fixture and a healthy list. You would be doing very well to scrape into the top 6.

We were like 2 goals from leapfrogging sydney this year

 

[TazHawk15]

We were like 2 goals from leapfrogging sydney this year

So moral top 8 then?

 

[Hootini]

So moral top 8 then?

Yea, ok. Or your assertion that we could not leap sydney is not a forgone conclusion.

 

[TazHawk15]

Yea, ok. Or your assertion that we could not leap sydney is not a forgone conclusion.

It was not even my assertion.

 

[Yippy Yi Yeo]

We were like 2 goals from leapfrogging sydney this year

Fact of the matter is they finished 2 games ahead of you. Also, Sydney won't lose 6 home games again next season.

 

[Hootini]

It was not even my assertion.

Yea, i deinitely misinterpreted "i can't see you leapfrogging... Sydney."

 

[Roobound]

I think the compensation for Gaff would be shite as it was for Buddy.

Some players are better than a pick directly after where your club finishes & should be factored into the equation.

Frawley..........Im not looking at you

 

[TazHawk15]

I think the compensation for Gaff would be shite as it was for Buddy.

Some players are better than a pick directly after where your club finishes & should be factored into the equation.

Frawley..........Im not looking at you

Yep.

The AFL should have given us pick 3 as well as Chip to make up for the disgusting crap of pick 19 for losing a once in a generation player.

 

[wolvesRoos]

Per my earlier post where I talked about the amateur approach to this whole area within the AFL as a whole, yes I believe it's possible. Contractually Gaff isnt a free agent, the entire point of the system is he can't leave if we match. He knows that.

At some point clubs need to exercise their rights too or we might as well just concede that the entire process is broken.

Again though, as said earlier, if the Eagles got a reasonable deal via compensation or trade they likely move on. The issue here is the compensation will clearly be inadequate if he goes to North (or anywhere else as a RFA). So matching has to be a significant consideration.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Even though I am a North supporter and I hope its not this time (if its us) I do agree with you. I don't like player power and free agency. I think clubs should put their foot down and say no. And as for trades maybe go as far as letting them nominate a state, but they shouldn't be able to nominate a club. If Melbourne club A could offer pick 2, but preferred Melbourne club B could offer pick 6, it should be up to the club where to send the player

 

[Don Won]

We were like 2 goals from leapfrogging sydney this year

... and you were like 3 points from finishing 12th on the ladder too.

 

[Hootini]

... and you were like 3 points from finishing 12th on the ladder too.

Sure, because teams can move up or down, doesn't take away from the potential to move up the ladder, which was the point i was countering.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

I laugh at the amount of times I see people on here thinking that if they add player x and player y to their team, they're instantly going to move up x number of spots on the ladder.

Adding players to your team from other clubs is a very small piece of the overall puzzle in terms of success and in fact there are probably more important pieces like club culture, game plans, team structure etc that have far more influence as a whole. Sure it helps, but it's a very simplistic view.

 

[Yippy Yi Yeo]

Yea, i deinitely misinterpreted "i can't see you leapfrogging... Sydney."

I think he was referring to the fact that it was my assertion, and not his.

 

[teddies]

Even though I am a North supporter and I hope its not this time (if its us) I do agree with you. I don't like player power and free agency. I think clubs should put their foot down and say no. And as for trades maybe go as far as letting them nominate a state, but they shouldn't be able to nominate a club. If Melbourne club A could offer pick 2, but preferred Melbourne club B could offer pick 6, it should be up to the club where to send the player

I agree in part. However if Club A is offering the player $700k/yr and Club B is offering $1m/yr he's going to be livid if his current club chooses to deal with ClubA and robs him of $300k/yr. You're essentially limiting his earning potential.

An alternate solution might be to allow players to nominate a club but there's an independent process to determine the trade value, and it's up to the potential destination club to satisfy the trade conditions. If they can't, then allow the origin club to deal with the greatest bidder. How the trade value would be determined I have no idea, but I'm sure the AFL could come up with some super secret formula that spits out magic numbers.

 

[GreatBradScott]

Surely the Eagles will get a combined pick for Gaff and Lycett, like the Dogs will get for Dahlhaus and Roughead/Wallis.

No way the league hands out like eight or nine compensation/priority picks.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Surely the Eagles will get a combined pick for Gaff and Lycett, like the Dogs will get for Dahlhaus and Roughead/Wallis.

No way the league hands out like eight or nine compensation/priority picks.

Has that happened before?

 

[GreatBradScott]

Has that happened before?

Not that I know of, which is why no one is talking about it.

With the amount of players moving and Carlton/GC/Saints (maybe) getting picks, not sure clubs are going to buy a draft that's blown out ten picks by 30.

 

[carnthedons]

Not that I know of, which is why no one is talking about it.

With the amount of players moving and Carlton/GC/Saints (maybe) getting picks, not sure clubs are going to buy a draft that's blown out ten picks by 30.

Pretty sure they work it out as a net position and then allocate on the basis of that. Given Gaff is likely to trigger band 1, not sure there’s precedent for band 1+ extras