Rumour Bluemour Discussion XXXVI - 'Loopy' Season in full swing

[DangerousD]

I remember hearing an interview with Stephen Wells a few years back, who held the mantra that sometimes you have to pay overs to get the player you want, because you don't have to 'win' every trade. His belief was that all parties should walk away happy after any trade.

Which is one of the reasons why they've been as successful as they've been over many years. And from what I've seen of Austin so far, he seems to have a similar philosophy - which I personally find refreshing after our previous list manager who successfully managed to clog up a number of trade periods, similar to Dodoro.

Who have the overpaid for though?

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

His medicals aren't the issue. It's his form and the fact he's 30.

30 is the new 26.

 

[No1Suspect]

11 and 31 for SDK.

Get it done Austin ffs.

Do not **** this up!

I'd try and get 12 before hand and pass that on, keep 11.

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

I'd try and get 12 before hand and pass that on, keep 11.

i reckon that's the plan...

 

[DangerousD]

Is Smith > > Houston?

(not similar players granted but on a cost comparison basis?)

Smith out of contract, Houston is not.

It seems Dogs have no desire for Smith to stay which is opposite to Port

 

[BigFrizz36]

Who have the overpaid for though?

Lachie Henderson?

 

[Bagger24]

These two paras seem to directly contradict each other…..

No interest from the point of when it was known he was coming to Victoria, we didn’t show interest and reach out to his party, his party reached out to us

 

[DangerousD]

Because the 5 salaries are staggered so that they aren't getting paid the big $$$ all in the same year. The difference between actual AFL contracts and reported AFL contracts is that very very very few are set amounts/year. So when a reporter say X will earn $8million over 7 seasons, the media and the public go, wow that guys getting $1.15m a year every year for 7 years.
Where as its traditionally done either back ended, front ended or in our case at the moment more like a bell graph. So having each of these bell graphs contracts staggered means in any given year only one or two of the players will actually be receiving the highest earning point of their salary.

They have also all taken under compared to the market value and offers they have received.

Brisbane and other teams definitely have deals like that, some not as many as others, but all have marquee higher earners.
The reason Brisbane, Sydney and Collingwood have been able to manage over the last couple of years is because they have secured academy and father son top end talent who are on locked contracts for their first three years. This has helped them succeed now, but kicks the can down the road. Collingwood is finding it hard to retain some middling best 22 players this year because Daicos is now out of his draftee contract. It's also what has caught up with the Dogs the last couple of years.

This is why refilling from the draft is so important, not only does it refresh your list but it also refreshes your salary cap.
As stated in an earlier post, the difference between Owies, Young, Cunningham and 3 draftees could be close to 1mil in cap space. Obviously have 35 players between 23 and 28 on a list would be ideal, but its simple not possible to keep that many players of AFL standard happy financially and game timewise.

That's the tricky balance of List Management, having enough 1-3 year players to allow you to pay your prime players, and hoping that from those drafted players, a high % go on to being top tier players, as the older ones start to get to the back end of their contracts which are designed to taper off and then a collection of role players who are team driven but happen to not be lured away by other clubs for higher figures.
This is the sustainability model that allows you to stay a competitive team year on year. Getting full club buy in that you will earn fairly throughout your career, earning the most when you are in the age bracket to be delivering the most, but building the confidence of both the younger and older players that everyone will get their lick of the ice cream. Once this becomes ingrained within a clubs DNA you find that players will stay for less with the desire for success that leave for the lucrative deals that other clubs will throw at them.

Some clubs find it very tough, player managers these days are on another planet. They look to get their players taken in the first round contract extensions in excess of $600k+ before they have even played a game. That is another reason why club culture as well as the club have positive relationships with player managers is so important.
(As i mention a while ago in regards to the Martin situation)

Once again to reference Geelong, up until last years tomfoolery, they just got deals done, they didn't haggle to much, they were happy to identify the player they wanted, and do what was required to get the deal done.
That built up repour is not something that is quickly forgotten within the industry.
Although the AFL seems like a massive business, there really isn't that many people involved. So you don't want to burn bridges to often for the sake of making a 'ruthless' point.
Unless there is a very serious point that needs to be made.

Sorry for the long winded reply. Hopefully I've articulated this well enough.

No need to be sorry, loved it and I understand, but my post was mostly replying to your point that we have about 5 players supposedly close to $1M compared to Geelongs 1 and how that might affect us.

I also don’t see Brisbane as having close to 5 either.

I have concerns that Austin overpays at the trade table, with years in contracts and $$$$, these things don’t seem an issue at the time but usually come back to bite you down the track.

As i have this view it’s easy for me to apply this to lots of recent deals and see a trend to support my view and I’m sure someone who thinks the opposite thinks my view is dumb.

Without knowing exact player contracts I’m also going off mostly just media reports.

Seeing Geelong lose a GF and then afford a Cameron type player, for them to have cap space to buy pick 7 off GC and now being able to target Smith, Oliver and Martin with no hint of cap pressure and our club constantly being mentioned as being under pressure is worthy of discussion.

I’m very interested in our trade period this year, Soapy has long been saying we have $$$ to spend and it’s positive we are being linked with players but if nothing comes of it, it will be a pretty big indication that we have a maxed out cap and our competitors above us, don’t.

 

[DangerousD]

Lachie Henderson?

Did they?

 

[Wickzki]

Seeing Geelong lose a GF and then afford a Cameron type player, for them to have cap space to buy pick 7 off GC and now being able to target Smith, Oliver and Martin with no hint of cap pressure and our club constantly being mentioned as being under pressure is worthy of discussion.

If Geelong were Carlton and Cotton On were VISY then the AFL would have shut this down.

They have 14 current Geelong players under marketing contracts.

Smith and Oliver have the same manager who helped Smith sign the Cotton On deal.

Come on now.

E: before anyone links to the article that claims they only have two this was already proven to be BS.

 

[JJBagger]

Did they?

A first round pick. 100% they overpaid for him

 

[CrippaTheGoat9]

Jack and Houston working out together …

 

[HarryFlashman]

If Geelong were Carlton and Cotton On were VISY then the AFL would have shut this down.

They have 14 current Geelong players under marketing contracts.

Smith and Oliver have the same manager who helped Smith sign the Cotton On deal.

Come on now.

E: before anyone links to the article that claims they only have two this was already proven to be BS.

Smiths Cotton On deal is a doozy, with my tin foil hat on I wouldn’t be surprised that this was a long term plan that was pretty much a win/win for them.
I’ve dealt with the guys from Cotton On on a number of occasions, they are very very smart, ruthless, more pro active & more market leading then reactive.
They changed the market & set the new norm when it comes to there leases.

 

[thedan29]

View attachment 2129778

Jack and Houston working out together …

They’re best mates, was in SOS’s bridal party

 

[Wickzki]

Smiths Cotton On deal is a doozy, with my tin foil hat on I wouldn’t be surprised that this was a long term plan that was pretty much a win/win for them.
I’ve dealt with the guys from Cotton On on a number of occasions, they are very very smart, ruthless, more pro active & more market leading then reactive.
They changed the market & set the new norm when it comes to there leases.

I think you're right. People were talking about Bailey Smith to Geelong being a possibility two years ago... Then he signed that ambassador deam.

 

[CrippaTheGoat9]

They’re best mates, was in SOS’s bridal party

Yep I know, just funny I think Jack knows what he’s doing by posting that

 

[ESKIE]

Didn’t he marry sos’s daughter?










I’ll see myself out, cheers

 

[RPCB]

View attachment 2129778

Jack and Houston working out together …

Caption - “**** sake mate, the media are going to have a field day with this.”

 

[RPCB]

If Geelong were Carlton and Cotton On were VISY then the AFL would have shut this down.

They have 14 current Geelong players under marketing contracts.

Smith and Oliver have the same manager who helped Smith sign the Cotton On deal.

Come on now.

E: before anyone links to the article that claims they only have two this was already proven to be BS.

Sadly there are even opposition supporters who refuse to call it out. “Geelong are just very well run.”

 

[Wickzki]

Sadly there are even opposition supporters who refuse to call it out. “Geelong are just very well run.”

They are very well run. With a ton of cherries on top.

 

[HarryFlashman]

I think Geelong really pisses us off when u look at there advantages & strength as a club.

We got right royally ****ed with Princess Park, it should have had major investment way back when & used for games with low attendance.
We wouldn’t have had a home ground advantage as it would never have been big enough for our crowds but we got nothing instead of a massive passive income.

Seeing Geelong make money hand over fist & a big home ground advantage hurts.

The fact they have done some incredibly dodgy shit to supplement there cap & gotten away with it just adds to the spiky end of the pineapple we received.

 

[Lace_Out]

There is little known codicil in the AFL constitution



If there are any rules that benefit all sides but one of those sides is Carlton then we didn’t mean it.

I remember that guy from Sledge Hammer, he's a ripper

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

 

[Wickzki]

I think Geelong really pisses us off when u look at there advantages & strength as a club.

We got right royally ****ed with Princess Park, it should have had major investment way back when & used for games with low attendance.
We wouldn’t have had a home ground advantage as it would never have been big enough for our crowds but we got nothing instead of a massive passive income.

Seeing Geelong make money hand over fist & a big home ground advantage hurts.

The fact they have done some incredibly dodgy shit to supplement there cap & gotten away with it just adds to the spiky end of the pineapple we received.

Honestly. Think PP was never on the cards. Every damn time we put together a plan - incliding the failed Legends Stand - the residents of the area around PP kicked up a stink.

Would have been perfect for us and the AFL but was simply going to prove too problematic.

 

[DangerousD]

If Geelong were Carlton and Cotton On were VISY then the AFL would have shut this down.

They have 14 current Geelong players under marketing contracts.

Smith and Oliver have the same manager who helped Smith sign the Cotton On deal.

Come on now.

E: before anyone links to the article that claims they only have two this was already proven to be BS.

If you tell me something I’ll believe you, it’s all good, the concern is then, why don’t we?

Cripps and Curnow could go out tomorrow and sign a whole heap of marketing contracts, tv commercials, radio commercial deals and earn extra $$$, it’s then trying to convince the players that they should then take less $$$ from the club.

I like joking about it and the banter that goes with complaining about other clubs but to still think there’s an anti Carlton agenda and a blind eye turned to Geelong is a bit silly.

If Geelong are getting players to play for less, then it’s on us to find ways to get our players to.

It’s been mentioned here the AFL have mentioned looking at Smiths Cotton on deal to make sure it hasn’t increased or won’t, after he moved but if he knew ages ago he would move to Geelong it’s totally possible he increased the $$$.

Still in saying that, even if that’s true, he has still been convinced to take less at Geelong than m more money elsewhere

 

[Coops93]

Any chance we can swap the labels so that No Discussion is yellow as before and this discussion thread is Red Hot Topic?
Thanks

That would make more sense.