Discussion BRENDON Goddard and Free Agency (Thread Closed)

[Lance Uppercut]

of course Essendon haven't signed Goddard yet. Only an imbecile would think that. It's not possible. What is possible is to have an understanding, but until that's inked it means nothing.

Ok if that's the way you want to respond to me then do it. I don't really care if you feel the need to get prickly with me.

If you believe the rumours today, Brent Moloney has listed Essendon as his preferred destination which in free agent speak is that he will sign for them (assuming the rumours are true). Now, I don't think Brent Moloney would be on a huge contract but if Essendon were genuinely in the running for Goddard at $800k per year, I can't see them dishing out the 250k-300k that Moloney would want on Moloney. It makes Goddard so much more difficult. For that reason, I think Goddard and Essendon is a pipedream and isn't going to happen. Yes, they are my thoughts but Fremantle are gone, Essendon are likely gone etc. Either Goddard has agreed to go somewhere like Geelong or he intends to stay at the Saints. The reality is that Goddard's two biggest FINANCIAL bidders have seemingly dropped out meaning that bucket loads of money probably isn't going to be the reason he leaves unless there is a secret bidder that has been kept quiet.

I don't know on length, I was purely speculating. If Goddard wants four years rather than three, I can see it being even more likely that he will sign for an opposition club and want St Kilda to match. Public comments, B & F speeches mean nothing. You have to play it as if you will leave, otherwise you aren't in a strong position if a club thinks you will fold.

if you'd thought it through even slightly you'd realise that we will be freeing up more than $300k at the end of this year regardless of what happens...

So why isn't Goddard to Essendon a pipe-dream again?

 

[The Punter]

The AFL doesn't do pro-rated salaries - it's what you get paid in any given year. Otherwise the effectiveness of actually taking a pay cut would be heavily compromised.

 

[MightySaint]

Regardless of anything else, if Goddard is willing to stay at the club for a shitload less money than he can apparently get from elsewhere, surely the least we can do in return is give him the 4th year he is after?

I know if I was at a club and I was willing to forego as much as $1million to stay with them, I would be pretty pissed off if they weren't willing to give me something in return, such as the "security" of a 4th year.

What someone else offers should have no bearing on what we offer. Regardless of where Essendon wants to underpay/overpay, we need to have an offer that makes sense with the rest of our list in mind. If the club feels that 4 years is too long, then someone else offering 5 years should have zero effect on our offer. At some point the benefits of keeping a player are outweighed by the negatives of keeping them at an unreasonable salary/length of deal.

 

[aussierulesrules]

That's reasonable, but it just feels as though Goddard would have to give up a hell of a lot to stay, while we don't seem prepared to give up much at all in order to keep him.

If it were me and I was willing to give up a shitload, but the other party I was negotiating with were not really willing to give up much in return, in order to reach a middle ground, or compromise, I think leaving would be the best option, if there was another party that really wanted me and was prepared to give up a lot in order to get me on board. I just reckon you would feel a much stronger sense of being wanted at the other place, rather than at the place that is willing to give up very little in order to keep you.

 

[MightySaint]

That's reasonable, but it just feels as though Goddard would have to give up a hell of a lot to stay, while we don't seem prepared to give up much at all to keep him.

Can't argue with that! Maybe we are all wrong, but it just feels like the separation has already happened. Nothing to do with ability or desire on BJ's part, but I think the club wouldn't be shattered to see him move on and rebuild through the compensation and some wisely used FA money.

 

[Persevering Saint]

A lovely delusional post, but one that is common at the moment on BF. Essendon supporters in their droves currently believe that Essendon has the means to:

- draft Daniher as father / son with first draft choice (the only valid one on the list)

- entice and trade for Caddy from Gold Coast. But problem isn't in enticing Caddy, its in coming up with a deal for Gold Coast.

- bring in Goddard from Saints on HUGE dollars under free agency

- bring in Maloney from Melbourne on good dollars under free agency

- trade for Ibbotson from Freo

- trade for Toy from Gold Coast

- trade for Hickey from Gold Coast

- trade for Stevens from West Coast

- two further draft picks (must take 3 in draft and have taken one already with Daniher)

And to make all of this happen, they have no first draft pick (used for Daniher) and won't trade their key players (as you would expect) and are offering players that no one (and I mean not even Melbourne) want.

So this means that Essendon is contemplating bringing ten (10) on to their senior list.

As we are all aware NO ONE has signed anyone. This can't happen to October. But much like their weight training and fitness program, where they wanted to get "big quick", it seems the same policy extends to their drafting.

By the end you may find that Essendon has picked up Daniher and their two other draft choices and thats it. Off to another pre-season of gut busting weights, before the season of hamstring stretching starts all over again.

You know what makes that funnier? They would be drafting ALL those players to IMMEDIATELY come in to their side. What does that say about the players they ALREADY have? How crap is their list, that they need to trade in that many players? How crap is their draft-selection, and development, that they need to basically do a talent-transplant? That their supporters are so desperate to do that is a sad indictment on Essendone.

 

[Sunshine Saint]

of course Essendon haven't signed Goddard yet. Only an imbecile would think that. It's not possible. What is possible is to have an understanding, but until that's inked it means nothing.

You are absolutely right, it is possible to have an understanding. But as history shows us, from Bob Hawke & Paul Keatings Kirribilli agreement, to my understanding that of course I would get to play with St Kilda, things don't always work out as agreed, imagined or planned for.

Lets see in a months time, who is where. We may find that like most years, there is hardly any movement anywhere.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You are absolutely right, it is possible to have an understanding. But as history shows us, from Bob Hawke & Paul Keatings Kirribilli agreement, to my understanding that of course I would get to play with St Kilda, things don't always work out as agreed, imagined or planned for.

Lets see in a months time, who is where. We may find that like most years, there is hardly any movement anywhere.

no doubt. Even if there is an understanding, things can change.

As for the poster who thinks Essendon fans believe they are getting 10 players yada yada yada - what a load of shit. I'm sure I could go to every team board and gather every single thought on trading, compile it in a post, and attribute it to every supporter from that club. But then I'd be being a dickhead, wouldn't I...

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

That's reasonable, but it just feels as though Goddard would have to give up a hell of a lot to stay, while we don't seem prepared to give up much at all in order to keep him.

If it were me and I was willing to give up a shitload, but the other party I was negotiating with were not really willing to give up much in return, in order to reach a middle ground, or compromise, I think leaving would be the best option, if there was another party that really wanted me and was prepared to give up a lot in order to get me on board. I just reckon you would feel a much stronger sense of being wanted at the other place, rather than at the place that is willing to give up very little in order to keep you.

Wouldn't classify as being the highest paid player at your club as giving up very little to keep you.

 

[sauce_head]

Can we cut out the sh!t about who bets what? I only have so much toilet time and don't want to read it.

 

[Plugger35]

Regardless of anything else, if Goddard is willing to stay at the club for a shitload less money than he can apparently get from elsewhere, surely the least we can do in return is give him the 4th year he is after?

I know if I was at a club and I was willing to forego as much as $1million to stay with them, I would be pretty pissed off if they weren't willing to give me something in return, such as the "security" of a 4th year.

Yeah I can understand St Kilda being reluctant to offer Goddard as much as he might be able to get elsewhere but I can't understand why they would be so reluctant to offer him 4 years if he's prepared to stay at St Kilda for less if he got 4 years.

If he left because he got offered shitloads more somewhere else then that's understandable but if he left just because another club offered him 4 years and we didn't then that would be harder to cop.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Yeah I can understand St Kilda being reluctant to offer Goddard as much as he might be able to get elsewhere but I can't understand why they would be so reluctant to offer him 4 years if he's prepared to stay at St Kilda for less if he got 4 years.

If he left because he got offered shitloads more somewhere else then that's understandable but if he left just because another club offered him 4 years and we didn't then that would be harder to cop.

Definitely. There is no suggestion anywhere that he wants us to pay him "as much as he might be able to get elsewhere" though. He is pretty clearly prepared to forgo a lot of money in order to stay, but if we then want him to forgo the last year on top of that, I think we're pushing things too far, if we do in fact want him to stick around, as we claim we do. If we don't, then lets just be open and honest about it and say we no longer want him and all get on with our lives.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

Can we cut out the sh!t about who bets what? I only have so much toilet time and don't want to read it.

Eat more prunes.

 

[MCG-Unit]

Regardless of anything else, if Goddard is willing to stay at the club for a shitload less money than he can apparently get from elsewhere, surely the least we can do in return is give him the 4th year he is after?

I know if I was at a club and I was willing to forego as much as $1million to stay with them, I would be pretty pissed off if they weren't willing to give me something in return, such as the "security" of a 4th year.

Yes if Goddard was prepared to take less $$ and wants that 4th year - I would give it for sure, really needs to be more of two-way giving.
Still we don't even know if the $$ figures being reported are true.....

 

[Sunshine Saint]

no doubt. Even if there is an understanding, things can change.

As for the poster who thinks Essendon fans believe they are getting 10 players yada yada yada - what a load of shit. I'm sure I could go to every team board and gather every single thought on trading, compile it in a post, and attribute it to every supporter from that club. But then I'd be being a dickhead, wouldn't I...

Lance, sorry can't help you there, no idea whether you are dickhead or not

 

[sauce_head]

Eat more prunes.

Ha ha! Not sure my boss would be happy!

 

[Saint Christopher]

Definitely. There is no suggestion anywhere that he wants us to pay him "as much as he might be able to get elsewhere" though. He is pretty clearly prepared to forgo a lot of money in order to stay, but if we then want him to forgo the last year on top of that, I think we're pushing things too far, if we do in fact want him to stick around, as we claim we do. If we don't, then lets just be open and honest about it and say we no longer want him and all get on with our lives.

Agree, agree, agree - we can't match other offers, but we can offer 4 years surely for a guy who wants to stay and has bled for this club. There seems to be a bit too much rigidity from the management in regard to this. I am hoping that the club is just waiting to see the other offers and then will increase its offer again which is what FA is forcing them to do...I hope.

 

[CHBench]

If we really really wanted to keep him, the deal would've been done by now. Absolutely no doubt in my mind. But I just think the club is extremely attracted to the prospect of back to back first rounders (almost top tenners when you take out F/S's), and will only hold onto him if we can sign him for unders, which he is obviously not entertaining.

I'm happy either way, i don't even remember the last time we had 2 picks in the first round, let alone this early. When you consider the fact that we've made a habit of botching first rounders, we should be aiming to trade up into multiple 1st rounders sometime in the next few years, and given that after Goddard there's really no expendable quality that could possibly get us one, it's really not such a bad thing.

If he could go to GWS that would be great, otherwise anywhere but Freo.

 

[StFly]

The AFL doesn't do pro-rated salaries - it's what you get paid in any given year. Otherwise the effectiveness of actually taking a pay cut would be heavily compromised.

And the CBA always points to yearly increments, but since when have we ever let facts get in the way of a good tale?

I'm happy either way, i don't even remember the last time we had 2 picks in the first round, let alone this early. When you consider the fact that we've made a habit of botching first rounders, we should be aiming to trade up into multiple 1st rounders sometime in the next few years, and given that after Goddard there's really no expendable quality that could possibly get us one, it's really not such a bad thing.

If he could go to GWS that would be great, otherwise anywhere but Freo.

2000: Riewoldt [priority] Kosi [#1]
2001: Ball [priority] X [#5] Dal [#13]

So back in the "shit" period between '97 and '04 when we were generally down the bottom rung on the ladder. To effectively engineer it now in todays climate creates a veritable win win situation, in that the club wins and retains a 1st rounder is BJ stays, and wins if BJ walks and we nab 2 mid first rounders, this is also probably why the club wants to retain BJ, but isn't going so far as to lock him in as you would Rooey since put bluntly his position is far more easily filled and compensated for. Sure the club and player will work towards mutual arrangements, but footy is still ruthless at its core.

 

[BrianSpeaking]

And the CBA always points to yearly increments, but since when have we ever let facts get in the way of a good tale?


2000: Riewoldt [priority] Kosi [#1]
2001: Ball [priority] X [#5] Dal [#13]

So back in the "shit" period between '97 and '04 when we were generally down the bottom rung on the ladder. To effectively engineer it now in todays climate creates a veritable win win situation, in that the club wins and retains a 1st rounder is BJ stays, and wins if BJ walks and we nab 2 mid first rounders, this is also probably why the club wants to retain BJ, but isn't going so far as to lock him in as you would Rooey since put bluntly his position is far more easily filled and compensated for. Sure the club and player will work towards mutual arrangements, but footy is still ruthless at its core.

We played in the Grand Final in 97 and won our first 12 games in 98, hardly a 'shit period'.

 

[Squizz]

We played in the Grand Final in 97 and won our first 12 games in 98, hardly a 'shit period'.

You know what he meant. Ease up on the picking of the nits. We had some truly awful seasons during that period, and I'm still haunted by Cayden Beetham running backwards and baulking to avoid a player that wasn't there in a 28-111 humiliation by the filth in 2002.

 

[StFly]

We played in the Grand Final in 97 and won our first 12 games in 98, hardly a 'shit period'.

Good thing I excluded '97 & '04 as '97 doesn't fall between '97 & '04 and is instead the boundaries for the years I included, but then, that takes deduction ability that when one makes a post re shit years they do not include prelim or GF appearances.

So considering that is our boundary line, you have a decay period playing wise from ['97 GF appearance]'98 -> bottomed out '00-'02 -> gradually improved to ['04 Prelim final repeat period] before the board challenge in '07 which has thus far generated a far better half a decade than prior.

So you had '98 - Good -> '99 -Average -> '00-'02 - Utter shit -> '03 - Good, so out of 6 years you had 3 of shit, 2 of good and 1 rather mediocre one of neither here nor there on an obvious decline. The decline places a negative trend from '99 to '02 or 4 years out of the 6 being entirely negative and thus "shit years".

So I would thank you to actually combine the periods I stated instead of taking 1 year in isolation and immediately deducing that my entire point was rubbish because of it, 4 negative trends > 2 positive.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Sorry to interrupt the bickering, but just as an update, Jon Ralph from the Herald Sun was on SEN a couple of hours ago and they were talking about Cloke and Goddard's situations and Ralph said CATEGORICALLY that Goddard has ruled out a move to Freo.

He also said that, based on the way Pelchan usually operates, the offer that we have on the table at the moment is unlikely to change. Word from pretty much everyone is that he is extremely stubborn and if that continues to be the case here, we can probably pretty much rule ourselves out of the race as well, I would suggest.

Another mid round one draft pick and ample salary cap space to go after others here we come?

 

[StFly]

Sorry to interrupt the bickering, but just as an update, Jon Ralph from the Herald Sun was on SEN a couple of hours ago and they were talking about Cloke and Goddard's situations and Ralph said CATEGORICALLY that Goddard has ruled out a move to Freo.

He also said that, based on the way Pelchan usually operates, the offer that we have on the table at the moment is unlikely to change. Word from pretty much everyone is that he is extremely stubborn and if that continues to be the case here, we can pretty much rule ourselves out of the race as well.

The Freo offer, as far as the media is concerned anyway, is due to an opinion that they will not get Cloke and since Lyon coaches Freo there's an obvious link as opposed to actual substance of interest and clubs approaching managers to express interest. Given that, it's simply (in all probability) the story being perpetuated by journos asking if BJ would go to Freo to join his old coach. You'd have to pay close attention to the actual question he was asked before you even see how BJ phrased his response, since it's well known he's waiting for FA to see worth and that's it, there's nothing stated by he, clubs or management for anything after that he's even planning to engage the FA system.

But yes otherwise Pelchan does seem to have a perception that he's a hardarse and more deserving of Ox than Ox re his stubbornness.

 

[saintsrfreak]

I'm really happy with our new stance on player payment. And I would hope that Pelchen stands firm, because like Scotty, I value the club more than any player. We can't crumble under the demands of BJ.