Club Focus Brisbane Lions 2024 - in search of another KPF?

[Ticky009]

Data from footywire. To check the draft order see the thread here.

Footywire says: "While we make every effort to keep up to date with player contracts, it is likely that our data may at times be out of date, incomplete or inaccurate. If you find any player contracts that need updating, please let us know using our brand new contract submission form."

 

[stallon]

Framework maybe
Lions to Eagles
Dev R
Eagles to Hawks
TB
Hawks to lions
ML

Lions dont have anything else to add here that would make it worth adding them to this 3 way. Theyll already have to add picks from next year to match their bids this year.
Better off leaving Dev out of it, he would be gettable with a late pick

 

[blueiris]

Lions dont have anything else to add here that would make it worth adding them to this 3 way. Theyll already have to add picks from next year to match their bids this year.
Better off leaving Dev out of it, he would be gettable with a late pick

we have our first round pick and F1st not that we need a forward rhat will be out for the whole of 25 i think your foggotten that we got ASHCROFT and Fletcher in the one draft

 

[stallon]

we have our first round pick and F1st not that we need a forward rhat will be out for the whole of 25 i think your foggotten that we got ASHCROFT and Fletcher in the one draft

Your pick 18, most of the rest of this years hand, and some of next years hand should be needed to get points.
Youve got about 1100 points right now, a bid at pick 2 required over 2000 points. Need some big points value from splitting picks and probably bringing forward something from next year.

Nothing to trade with mate, and not sure what Will Ashcroft?? and Fletcher have to do with anything here, unless youre putting them on the trade table?

 

[blueiris]

Your pick 18, most of the rest of this years hand, and some of next years hand should be needed to get points.
Youve got about 1100 points right now, a bid at pick 2 required over 2000 points. Need some big points value from splitting picks and probably bringing forward something from next year.

Nothing to trade with mate, and not sure what Will Ashcroft?? and Fletcher have to do with anything here, unless youre putting them on the trade table?

our Future 1st should get us enough points for Matching especially to a team like Richmond who won't use those late picks meaning we would still have our first for this year i brought up Wash and Fletch becuase we are one team that can trade away future picks

 

[stallon]

our Future 1st should get us enough points for Matching especially to a team like Richmond who won't use those late picks meaning we would still have our first for this year i brought up Wash and Fletch becuase we are one team that can trade away future picks

Yes you can make up the points, thats literally what I said.
You wont have anything to trade for a half decent forward was my point, seems you missed it

 

[blueiris]

Yes you can make up the points, thats literally what I said.
You wont have anything to trade for a half decent forward was my point, seems you missed it

we don't seriously need to trade for a key forward my point was to you saying we have don't have anything of value to trade

 

[lionsrules]

It's not a matter of should, that's part of the CBA agreement between the AFL and the AFLPA

Retiring players contracts, in the event where a player before the contract expires, must still be paid in their entirety and count towards the teams cap unless 1 of 2 things happens
1 - A payout is negotiated between club and player. In this instance the payout still counts towards the cap for the remainder of the contract but the amount is reduced
2 - It's a medical retirement and the club gets cap relief as per the Brayshaw rules introduced this year.

It's obviously not a medical retirement, so unless the Lions and Daniher agree upon a sum for 1, his contract must be paid out and still counts towards the cap.

It's happened with other teams and other players, Tippett and the Swans, Beams and the Magpies, for example. Brisbane and Daniher are no different.
As a result, they don't have the money to spend all of a sudden. They certainly wouldn't have the money to afford Lynch for example, but that's not really a problem, as they also don't have the draft capital because they need to cover Ashcroft and Marshall.
Unless they can convince some players to move to Melbourne as part of a trade with the Tigers or trade with other teams for that Draft capital and to free up cap space, the Lions are left picking through the scrap heap or developing kids.

Yeah nah that’s not how it works.
If he has left $1m on the table he isn’t entitled to the $1million. He would be entitled to a slice of it IF it’s a back ended deal and the contract was for example $750,000 a year and he was paid less at the start of the contract. Might as well sign a 7 year deal retire tomorrow and quote crankygeese on bigfooty as to why player is justified a full payout.

 

[A Bit Dusty]

Maybe the Lions already have someone inhouse already they could use forward. Tom Doedee

12

Tom Doedee

Age

27

Ht

190cm

Wt

90kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.1

4star

K

8.5

3star

HB

8.6

5star

M

5.6

5star

T

2.6

4star

MG

228.8

4star

D

15.3

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

5.8

3star

M

6.3

5star

T

1.3

2star

MG

228.8

3star

D

19.8

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

9.4

5star

M

6.6

5star

T

1.4

4star

is a very good mark and there probably isn't a spot for him down back now so maybe they could try him as a Forward.

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

It's not a matter of should, that's part of the CBA agreement between the AFL and the AFLPA

Retiring players contracts, in the event where a player before the contract expires, must still be paid in their entirety and count towards the teams cap unless 1 of 2 things happens
1 - A payout is negotiated between club and player. In this instance the payout still counts towards the cap for the remainder of the contract but the amount is reduced
2 - It's a medical retirement and the club gets cap relief as per the Brayshaw rules introduced this year.

It's obviously not a medical retirement, so unless the Lions and Daniher agree upon a sum for 1, his contract must be paid out and still counts towards the cap.

It's happened with other teams and other players, Tippett and the Swans, Beams and the Magpies, for example. Brisbane and Daniher are no different.
As a result, they don't have the money to spend all of a sudden. They certainly wouldn't have the money to afford Lynch for example, but that's not really a problem, as they also don't have the draft capital because they need to cover Ashcroft and Marshall.
Unless they can convince some players to move to Melbourne as part of a trade with the Tigers or trade with other teams for that Draft capital and to free up cap space, the Lions are left picking through the scrap heap or developing kids.

That is absolute nonsense. I cannot work out if you are serious or just trolling. There is no way a player who chooses to retire before fulfilling the end of their contract, gets paid the amount anyway. The media have been talking about it all week how Daniher is walking away from close to a million dollars left on his contract.

And even if it was true in the slightest, there are a lot of basement priced kp forwards lurking around such as the following:

J.Amartey
H.McLean
L.McDonald

 

[beatnik]

It's not a matter of should, that's part of the CBA agreement between the AFL and the AFLPA

Retiring players contracts, in the event where a player before the contract expires, must still be paid in their entirety and count towards the teams cap unless 1 of 2 things happens
1 - A payout is negotiated between club and player. In this instance the payout still counts towards the cap for the remainder of the contract but the amount is reduced
2 - It's a medical retirement and the club gets cap relief as per the Brayshaw rules introduced this year.

It's obviously not a medical retirement, so unless the Lions and Daniher agree upon a sum for 1, his contract must be paid out and still counts towards the cap.

It's happened with other teams and other players, Tippett and the Swans, Beams and the Magpies, for example. Brisbane and Daniher are no different.
As a result, they don't have the money to spend all of a sudden. They certainly wouldn't have the money to afford Lynch for example, but that's not really a problem, as they also don't have the draft capital because they need to cover Ashcroft and Marshall.
Unless they can convince some players to move to Melbourne as part of a trade with the Tigers or trade with other teams for that Draft capital and to free up cap space, the Lions are left picking through the scrap heap or developing kids.

Absolute nonsense, he’s fit to play…if he chooses to leave early, he won’t be paid out and his salary won’t be attached to our cap

Edit: there might be specific terms written into his contract that cover voluntary (non-medical) retirement but I’ve heard or seen nothing to suggest that being the case with Joe

The club might make a goodwill gesture and choose offer him some money and some or all of that would still be under the cap

But the idea that a player who is fit and wanted by the club gets paid out and all under the cap is absurd

 

[bungalow_bill]

Maybe the Lions already have someone inhouse already they could use forward. Tom Doedee is a very good mark and there probably isn't a spot for him down back now so maybe they could try him as a Forward.

Someone has mentioned moving Payne forward but he's far too important for our back line. If Lester's form holds and Doedee is fit it's an option.

 

[THE_GUN]

Framework maybe
Lions to Eagles
Dev R
Eagles to Hawks
TB
Hawks to lions
ML

Would this be considered a Win - Win - Win
maybe with later pick swaps

 

[THE_GUN]

our Future 1st should get us enough points for Matching especially to a team like Richmond who won't use those late picks meaning we would still have our first for this year i brought up Wash and Fletch becuase we are one team that can trade away future picks

Your pick #20 will not be getting anywhere near the bid for Ashcroft and you will most likely only get a 40% uplift in points max.

Richmond will be prioritizing upgrading its other picks with the later picks before getting to the Lions pick #20
I would rather Richmond bid on Ashcroft at #1 and wipe out all of Brisbanes points then bid on Marshall with pick #13 we get from the eagles for Baker and brisbane cant match

 

[beatnik]

Lynch would only be an option for us for a first rd pick. We are already going to bundle up late picks for the lions first anyway. So the only way we would consider if we got the suns pick 12 with our late picks and then got the lions first for lynch. However lions need the points so can’t see how they could do this.

Agree, we only need someone as a backup for a year, maybe two so if we’re going to go for a fill-in, it won’t be one that costs us a first with all the F-S and academy activity we’re about to undertake

 

[beatnik]

Lions dont have anything else to add here that would make it worth adding them to this 3 way. Theyll already have to add picks from next year to match their bids this year.
Better off leaving Dev out of it, he would be gettable with a late pick

Sure, but in this scenario, there’d still be some draft capital going from Hawthorn to WC as the players aren’t valued equally…I think that’s why he called it a framework rather than a trade suggestion

 

[beatnik]

Yeah nah that’s not how it works.
If he has left $1m on the table he isn’t entitled to the $1million. He would be entitled to a slice of it IF it’s a back ended deal and the contract was for example $750,000 a year and he was paid less at the start of the contract. Might as well sign a 7 year deal retire tomorrow and quote crankygeese on bigfooty as to why player is justified a full payout.

 

[blueiris]

Your pick #20 will not be getting anywhere near the bid for Ashcroft and you will most likely only get a 40% uplift in points max.

Richmond will be prioritizing upgrading its other picks with the later picks before getting to the Lions pick #20
I would rather Richmond bid on Ashcroft at #1 and wipe out all of Brisbanes points then bid on Marshall with pick #13 we get from the eagles for Baker and brisbane cant match

Richmond would not pick 13 for Baker who isn't a superstar surely the Eagles aren't that stupid

 

[THE_GUN]

Richmond would not pick 13 for Baker who isn't a superstar surely the Eagles aren't that stupid

And Richmond wont be so stupid to take pick #30+
will be #14 with rubbish going back or Baker + #10 for #3

#30+ wont be considered from whats being reported

 

[beatnik]

Your pick #20 will not be getting anywhere near the bid for Ashcroft and you will most likely only get a 40% uplift in points max.

Richmond will be prioritizing upgrading its other picks with the later picks before getting to the Lions pick #20
I would rather Richmond bid on Ashcroft at #1 and wipe out all of Brisbanes points then bid on Marshall with pick #13 we get from the eagles for Baker and brisbane cant match

I think that says more about you than it does about Richmond…why would you deny your future club legend a $10k sign on bonus and show him you don’t rate him as the best just to build bad blood with a club that you might need a favour from in future? The Dodoro win-lose negotiation model hasn’t served Essendon well over the years and is thankfully in the minority now

If Richmond rate Marshall at 13 then they’ll bid on him but they won’t do it out of spite…they’ll be looking for win-win opportunities because they’re not short-sighted egotists

 

[crankygeese]

That is absolute nonsense. I cannot work out if you are serious or just trolling. There is no way a player who chooses to retire before fulfilling the end of their contract, gets paid the amount anyway. The media have been talking about it all week how Daniher is walking away from close to a million dollars left on his contract.

And even if it was true in the slightest, there are a lot of basement priced kp forwards lurking around such as the following:

J.Amartey
H.McLean
L.McDonald

Absolute nonsense, he’s fit to play…if he chooses to leave early, he won’t be paid out and his salary won’t be attached to our cap

Edit: there might be specific terms written into his contract that cover voluntary (non-medical) retirement but I’ve heard or seen nothing to suggest that being the case with Joe

The club might make a goodwill gesture and choose offer him some money and some or all of that would still be under the cap

But the idea that a player who is fit and wanted by the club gets paid out and all under the cap is absurd

This has already been covered in quite some detail in February and June and the Angus Brayshaw decision around concussion related retirement.

As I said on my first post, in my second sentence, unless he waives all of his money next year they'll still be on the hook for it, though I'd imagine he'll accept a partial payout, a negotiated financial settlement, the club stays on the hook for the money.
Daniher and the Lions came to an agreement, and Daniher was happy to walk away without taking any money, but that financial settlement has to be negotiated every time a player retires with money remaining on his contract.

The only exceptions to this situation were introduced in June with the Brayshaw concussion retirement ruling.

When Brayshaw first announced his retirement, he had 3 million remaining on his contract, and club and player had to enter negotiations.

It was discussed in this Bigfooty thread starting from Page 10 - https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/angus-brayshaw-retires.1377241/page-8#post-82441805

It was discussed quite a bit at the time of his retirement, that concussion payouts might eventually sit outside the cap.

“Why is concussion different?”: Cornes’ query over Brayshaw’s contract payout negotiations

“This is the risk that clubs take when you sign players to long-term deals.”

www.sen.com.au

Angus Brayshaw at centre of $3 million drama after sad retirement from AFL

Angus Brayshaw is owed money after his unexpected retirement due to concussion. Find out more here.

au.sports.yahoo.com

There’s salary cap relief in ‘Brayshaw Ruling’ but more risk attached to long-term deals

The AFL is close to developing a model for how the wages of players medically retired due to concussion will be included in the salary cap.

www.theage.com.au

Channel Nine reports the AFL, Brayshaw's manager and the club have entered into negotiations over who will pay out the $3 million sum remaining.

Melbourne will most likely apply to the AFL for a dispensation to allow the majority of the estimated total be paid outside of the salary cap.

Clubs to get cap relief for medically retired players

The AFL has established new salary cap guidelines for clubs who lose players to concussion

www.afl.com.au

For AFL players affected, the guidelines have two key features – the ability to gradually pay the negotiated financial settlement with the player over the period of the contract and also maximum thresholds of salary cap relief within three years following the retirement.

In the year immediately following the retirement, the max threshold will be 90 per cent, the second year the max threshold will be 75 per cent and in the third year the max threshold will be 50 per cent.

But the AFL has said longer contracts beyond three years will not come under the guidelines.

"No relief will generally be provided with regards to TPP (total player payments) commitments that extend four years or longer following the year of retirement. Clubs should ensure that this is appropriately factored into the risk assessment processes undertaken for player contracts that extend over four years," the AFL statement said.

"The guidelines are only applicable in the specific circumstance of retirement occurring subject to a recommendation being made by the AFL concussion panel. Retirements due to other injuries, or decisions made unilaterally by the player or the club, will be subject to existing TPP assessment rules.

Most players see out their final years, but those that retire early still have rights to be paid, and those payouts have to be negotiated every time.

Other examples are Dayne Beams - https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...p/news-story/5494e4a09b0313c456e92b127ee4ea73
Kurt Tippett - https://www.afl.com.au/news/139309/contract-quirk-swans-delist-retired-ruck-plan-to-rookie-him

And if the contract they retire midway through is the contract they signed as part of Free Agency, that contract cannot be renegotiated and the whole thing sits within the cap. This was first applied to Lance Franklin's Free Agency deal, and applies to all Free Agency deals since.

I know you probably won't believe me, and that's your choice.
But just know that Joe Daniher saying to the Lions that he doesn't want a payout is the 2nd biggest thing he ever did for the club after winning the Premiership for them. He hasn't just walked away from the contract, he has completely freed the Lions from paying the money, a choice only he could make.

 

[crankygeese]

Something doesnt add up there.

Medically retired players get paid out. Sure. Common sense.

But a player who decides to retire simply because they had had enough playing AFL at the top level and didnt feel like forfilling their contract?

They are breaching their contract. Why would they get paid out in full?

It came about in a few different stages, but was basically completed as a result of the switch to full professionalism with the advent of the AFL in the early 90's. Prior to that, especially in the 70's and 80's when clubs were going broke, if a player was no longer any good, the clubs just stopped playing them so they didn't have to give them match payments, which made up the majority of the payments from clubs to players at the time.

Back then, the players would just retire and switch to their other job and would walk over into their other career without any real loss of earnings.

With the switch to full time professionalism (which actually started a little bit before the VFL became the AFL) that changed. Players no longer had other careers to fall back on. So as more players became professional, this became more of a problem, until the whole league as full time professional with the formation of the AFL. With the newly formed AFLPA ( it originally began as the VFLPA sometime in the 70's) the players pushed to have their contracts honoured until completion no matter what, and to move away from a heavy match payment structure and more guaranteed money. They were giving up careers in their 20's and 30's to play footy professionally, they had nothing to fall back on, so they needed protection. That system has stayed in place to this day. There were threats of strikes, the league tried union busting tactics, the whole shebang back in that period.

While most players see out their contracts and retire at completion, as a result of those negations all those years ago, any retiring player who retires while contracted is still entitled to the remainder of that contract, unless otherwise negotiated between the club and player.

Since then, the AFLPA has also negotiated a superannuation fund a retired players fund to help players transition away from full time football when their time comes.

The history of the AFL and the AFLPA is actually really interesting.
But I'm coming to the conclusion that BigFooty probably isn't the place to have those discussions. So I'll just leave it be.

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

This has already been covered in quite some detail in February and June and the Angus Brayshaw decision around concussion related retirement.

As I said on my first post, in my second sentence, unless he waives all of his money next year they'll still be on the hook for it, though I'd imagine he'll accept a partial payout, a negotiated financial settlement, the club stays on the hook for the money.
Daniher and the Lions came to an agreement, and Daniher was happy to walk away without taking any money, but that financial settlement has to be negotiated every time a player retires with money remaining on his contract.

The only exceptions to this situation were introduced in June with the Brayshaw concussion retirement ruling.

When Brayshaw first announced his retirement, he had 3 million remaining on his contract, and club and player had to enter negotiations.

It was discussed in this Bigfooty thread starting from Page 10 - https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/angus-brayshaw-retires.1377241/page-8#post-82441805

It was discussed quite a bit at the time of his retirement, that concussion payouts might eventually sit outside the cap.

“Why is concussion different?”: Cornes’ query over Brayshaw’s contract payout negotiations

“This is the risk that clubs take when you sign players to long-term deals.”

www.sen.com.au

Angus Brayshaw at centre of $3 million drama after sad retirement from AFL

Angus Brayshaw is owed money after his unexpected retirement due to concussion. Find out more here.

au.sports.yahoo.com

There’s salary cap relief in ‘Brayshaw Ruling’ but more risk attached to long-term deals

The AFL is close to developing a model for how the wages of players medically retired due to concussion will be included in the salary cap.

www.theage.com.au

Channel Nine reports the AFL, Brayshaw's manager and the club have entered into negotiations over who will pay out the $3 million sum remaining.

Melbourne will most likely apply to the AFL for a dispensation to allow the majority of the estimated total be paid outside of the salary cap.

Clubs to get cap relief for medically retired players

The AFL has established new salary cap guidelines for clubs who lose players to concussion

www.afl.com.au

For AFL players affected, the guidelines have two key features – the ability to gradually pay the negotiated financial settlement with the player over the period of the contract and also maximum thresholds of salary cap relief within three years following the retirement.

In the year immediately following the retirement, the max threshold will be 90 per cent, the second year the max threshold will be 75 per cent and in the third year the max threshold will be 50 per cent.

But the AFL has said longer contracts beyond three years will not come under the guidelines.

"No relief will generally be provided with regards to TPP (total player payments) commitments that extend four years or longer following the year of retirement. Clubs should ensure that this is appropriately factored into the risk assessment processes undertaken for player contracts that extend over four years," the AFL statement said.

"The guidelines are only applicable in the specific circumstance of retirement occurring subject to a recommendation being made by the AFL concussion panel. Retirements due to other injuries, or decisions made unilaterally by the player or the club, will be subject to existing TPP assessment rules.

Most players see out their final years, but those that retire early still have rights to be paid, and those payouts have to be negotiated every time.

Other examples are Dayne Beams - https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...p/news-story/5494e4a09b0313c456e92b127ee4ea73
Kurt Tippett - https://www.afl.com.au/news/139309/contract-quirk-swans-delist-retired-ruck-plan-to-rookie-him

And if the contract they retire midway through is the contract they signed as part of Free Agency, that contract cannot be renegotiated and the whole thing sits within the cap. This was first applied to Lance Franklin's Free Agency deal, and applies to all Free Agency deals since.

I know you probably won't believe me, and that's your choice.
But just know that Joe Daniher saying to the Lions that he doesn't want a payout is the 2nd biggest thing he ever did for the club after winning the Premiership for them. He hasn't just walked away from the contract, he has completely freed the Lions from paying the money, a choice only he could make.

But these are all on medical grounds Beams mental health, Brayshaw concussion Tippett chronic injury. These examples aren’t just players retiring prematurely because they want to, but they are injury forced retirements.

 

[THE_GUN]

I think that says more about you than it does about Richmond…why would you deny your future club legend a $10k sign on bonus and show him you don’t rate him as the best just to build bad blood with a club that you might need a favour from in future? The Dodoro win-lose negotiation model hasn’t served Essendon well over the years and is thankfully in the minority now

If Richmond rate Marshall at 13 then they’ll bid on him but they won’t do it out of spite…they’ll be looking for win-win opportunities because they’re not short-sighted egotists

The 10k means nothing and the future club legend will be given more than that when he re signs

Its all about making sure you get the best players at your club , Bid on Ashcroft wipe out their entire points so they cant go into deficit enough to take Marshall.

End result would mean by bidding on Ashcroft we get marshall
You dont see that ?

 

[Lingsface]

This is a bit left field but maybe trying out Garry Rohan as a free agent, him and Logan Morris playing deep with Hipwood chf might work.

 

[doggy_dog]

Would assume Joe is walking away from the money. Closest example that comes to mind is Tom Boyd who also left the remainder of his contract on the table.

In terms of replacing him it complicates things that he’s their KPF1 and also their back up ruck (and a pretty good one at that). Peter Wright would make a lot of sense IMO