Speculation Clayton Oliver [UFA 2030]

[ABAB]

How's Corn saying Dees will have to give their 1st pick to someone to take him? he's ran with that twice now.

He thinks it like the Bowes situation but Oliver ain't no Bowes lol.

Oliver is not going anywhere.

Nobody in their right mind would take over that contract.
Melbourne have no choice but to just hope he comes back better next year.

If they offload him, they would have to pay half his contract.
Even then he would be a risk for another club to take for several years, as it is unknown whether he can be trusted.

Melbourne made the deal, now they just have to live with it and hope it doesn't keep going down the same track.

Personally, I hope he has a good preseason away from football and comes back a new man.

What if Melbourne also offer their 1st rounder.......

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Oliver is not going anywhere.

Nobody in their right mind would take over that contract.
Melbourne have no choice but to just hope he comes back better next year.

If they offload him, they would have to pay half his contract.
Even then he would be a risk for another club to take for several years, as it is unknown whether he can be trusted.

Melbourne made the deal, now they just have to live with it and hope it doesn't keep going down the same track.

Personally, I hope he has a good preseason away from football and comes back a new man.

depends how they structure it. Cap is about to get a big boost.

The size of the contract means they won't have to give Melbourne much draft capital.

the risk is, is it a form slump? or has clayton got some real mental/health type issues that will just see him degrade further.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Newshound Sam Mcstory just wont give up:

who believes this ****in guy anyway.

he planted his flag that West Coast wouldn't pick Reid, and it failed miserably.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Absolutely crazy that he is contracted to 2030. I wonder if he would have been as loose as he has been if he only had 1-2 years left on his deal. That comfort might allow him to play up more.

just shows you the risk you take when you sign players to these type of contracts.

Sucks for melbourne, but thats the risk they took.

Demons may have to pick up half his salary to get him out or give some significant draft capital if someone takes on the full contract.

 

[tiger_tough]

who believes this ****in guy anyway.

he planted his flag that West Coast wouldn't pick Reid, and it failed miserably.

Once he hatches a story he barracks for it at every opportunity until the bitter end.

 

[Tugga27]

who believes this ****in guy anyway.

he planted his flag that West Coast wouldn't pick Reid, and it failed miserably.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

lol yeah, Cornes is an abolsute clown. He hates the dees. He literally contradicts himself. He criticises the dees for not getting more from Grundy, even though it was a salary dump but then says Melbourne must pay another club to get Oliver salary off the books. A complete 100% contradiction in every sense.

It's not his hate of the Dees that makes him say this, it's his hate of the Crows.

He is playing the long game so he can criticise them every time he has a down game for overpaying.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Priming the pump so he can criticise the Crows for over paying.

A dollar invested today nets a return tomorrow

Beat me to it.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Oliver is not going anywhere.

Nobody in their right mind would take over that contract.
Melbourne have no choice but to just hope he comes back better next year.

If they offload him, they would have to pay half his contract.
Even then he would be a risk for another club to take for several years, as it is unknown whether he can be trusted.

Melbourne made the deal, now they just have to live with it and hope it doesn't keep going down the same track.

Personally, I hope he has a good preseason away from football and comes back a new man.

Forgotten the Bryce Gibbs trade already?

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sexyhunk]

Not really, Goody said himself that there has been numerous off field issues they have had to work thru with him throughout his career and that last year wasn't a once off. If you were going to give him such a long term deal there should have at least been some sort of behavioural clause in the deal. If you needed to pay him stupid money for him to stay they should have given him more over a shorter period. Kelly has never had any off field issues as far as im aware.

To top it all off the game has moved away from pure inside mids, even if Oliver were to get back to his best for the duration of the contract there is no way in hell we can breakeven on this deal. You need to be a inside/outside mid with goal kicking ability to justify this sort deal now.

that the only bit they mucked up on. there no way they not pay him whatever to stay if he was getting offers else where, Melbourne were looking at multiple flags that moment in time.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

depends how they structure it. Cap is about to get a big boost.

The size of the contract means they won't have to give Melbourne much draft capital.

the risk is, is it a form slump? or has clayton got some real mental/health type issues that will just see him degrade further.

Apparently Oliver's contract is being indexed up with the cap

 

[SnusCG]

100%. Similar to Jack Bowes deal, you get that contract off the books for a club willing to take it on. Sadly for Melbourne, no one will..

Specifically on the Bowes contract and salary dump deals,

While I understand it from a teams point of view, it's annoying that Geelong were given the green light to 'smooth' out Bowes contract over 4 years rather than taking on the full 1.6m over 2.

If teams selling off contracts is going to become more of a thing, it does seem reasonable to enforce the current contract as part of the sale rather than letting a team get a player + a pick for a salary dump and then not receiving any of the negatives that come alongside the contract.

Collingwood paying part of Grundys contract is at least better from a fan perspective than giving away Grundy and a valuable pick, just to Grundy to get his contract spread out over more years.

Geelong to get their best pick in 16 years after Bowes chooses them

New premiers Geelong will take the salary dump of Jack Bowes’ big contract from the Gold Coast Suns and get pick seven.

www.theage.com.au

 

[BACCS]

Forgotten the Bryce Gibbs trade already?

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

We were in a premiership window and Gibbs had shown durability throughout his entire career, not even remotely comparable to this situation. Gibbs also had a very good first season with us before falling off a cliff.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Apparently Oliver's contract is being indexed up with the cap

Melbourne would prob need to cover a fair portion of it then.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Specifically on the Bowes contract and salary dump deals,

While I understand it from a teams point of view, it's annoying that Geelong were given the green light to 'smooth' out Bowes contract over 4 years rather than taking on the full 1.6m over 2.

If teams selling off contracts is going to become more of a thing, it does seem reasonable to enforce the current contract as part of the sale rather than letting a team get a player + a pick for a salary dump and then not receiving any of the negatives that come alongside the contract.

Collingwood paying part of Grundys contract is at least better from a fan perspective than giving away Grundy and a valuable pick, just to Grundy to get his contract spread out over more years.

Geelong to get their best pick in 16 years after Bowes chooses them

New premiers Geelong will take the salary dump of Jack Bowes’ big contract from the Gold Coast Suns and get pick seven.

www.theage.com.au

Even if you didn't put that control in place you actually can't really extend and smooth out Oliver's because it runs until 2030

 

[stavro#4]

There are only so many clubs who can take that contract and risk on.

If a club takes that on without a serious draft asset coming back.

Say Melbournes First for a second rounder.

They are nuts.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Specifically on the Bowes contract and salary dump deals,

While I understand it from a teams point of view, it's annoying that Geelong were given the green light to 'smooth' out Bowes contract over 4 years rather than taking on the full 1.6m over 2.

If teams selling off contracts is going to become more of a thing, it does seem reasonable to enforce the current contract as part of the sale rather than letting a team get a player + a pick for a salary dump and then not receiving any of the negatives that come alongside the contract.

Collingwood paying part of Grundys contract is at least better from a fan perspective than giving away Grundy and a valuable pick, just to Grundy to get his contract spread out over more years.

Geelong to get their best pick in 16 years after Bowes chooses them

New premiers Geelong will take the salary dump of Jack Bowes’ big contract from the Gold Coast Suns and get pick seven.

www.theage.com.au

Thankfully we don't like in a world where contracts are enforced even when all parties want to change them. Bowes was happy with the deal, Geelong was happy, Good Coast was happy. What's the issue?

The "smoothing" of Bowes' contract is likely why he wanted to get to Geelong instead of any other team. He was stuck playing VFL and we were offering him an extra 2 years at solid AFL wage (the additional 2 years were at ~$300k on top of the original contract). We could've left him in the VFL for 2 years and delisted him straight after but we actually committed to him.

If all we wanted was the draft pick we easily could've got his 2 year contract on the books, left him in the VFL for 2 years and delisted him.

The AFL blocking a player from renegotiating their contract would've had all sorts of push back from the players association. Bowes is happy, Geelong's happy and Gold Coast's happy

 

[SnusCG]

Thankfully we don't like in a world where contracts are enforced even when all parties want to change them. Bowes was happy with the deal, Geelong was happy, Good Coast was happy. What's the issue?

The "smoothing" of Bowes' contract is likely why he wanted to get to Geelong instead of any other team. He was stuck playing VFL and we were offering him an extra 2 years at solid AFL wage (the additional 2 years were at ~$300k on top of the original contract). We could've left him in the VFL for 2 years and delisted him straight after but we actually committed to him.

If all we wanted was the draft pick we easily could've got his 2 year contract on the books, left him in the VFL for 2 years and delisted him.

The AFL blocking a player from renegotiating their contract would've had all sorts of push back from the players association. Bowes is happy, Geelong's happy and Gold Coast's happy

Because the problem with Bowes contract and the reason we needed to trade it was not the 1.6M, it was the timeframe it was meant to be paid in.

A 4 year 550k a year contract is significantly easier to trade or fit into a salary cap on its own than a 2 year 800k contract. If he'd have let us 'smooth' his deal prior to the trade period no doubt pick 7 would never have been involved.

I'm not saying block a contract re-negotiation. By all means, give him a further 2 years at 300k a year, but If you're being given pick 7 as the incentive to take on an 800k a year deal for 2 years, you should be required to take on that part of the contract.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Because the problem with Bowes contract and the reason we needed to trade it was not the 1.6M, it was the timeframe it was meant to be paid in.

A 4 year 550k a year contract is significantly easier to trade or fit into a salary cap on its own than a 2 year 800k contract. If he'd have let us 'smooth' his deal prior to the trade period no doubt pick 7 would never have been involved.

I'm not saying block a contract re-negotiation. By all means, give him a further 2 years at 300k a year, but If you're being given pick 7 as the incentive to take on an 800k a year deal for 2 years, you should be required to take on that part of the contract.

You can shift 10% of the cap between years anyway by paying 95%-105% each year. In 2023 that 10% was $1.5m, far more than needed to bank Bowes' initial contract. And we've had a heap of cap space and been front ending contracts recently too as our stars are well past their peak earnings.

Clearly we were able to take on Bowes' initial deal so I don't see what the issue is.

 

[SnusCG]

You can shift 10% of the cap between years anyway by paying 95%-105% each year. In 2023 that 10% was $1.5m, far more than needed to bank Bowes' initial contract. And we've had a heap of cap space and been front ending contracts recently too as our stars are well past their peak earnings.

Clearly we were able to take on Bowes' initial deal so I don't see what the issue is.

There is no issue,

Again, it was all within the rules and all parties agreed, so be it.

But having the capabilities to pay 2 years, 800k a year and actually doing it are two very different things. Geelong spreading his contract out again probably allowed them to stay under 100% and gave them the opportunity to pay other players they might not have had the money for. Is it good management under the current rules? absolutely.

If the AFL are going to tick off salary dump trades, there needs to be some commitment from the team that they will actually be taking on that contract, in my opinion.

otherwise what's to stop Adelaide from telling Melbourne, yeah we'll take Claytons full 6 year, 6 million dollars and your first round pick for pick 30 and then just offering to 'smooth' his contract to 6.5m over 12 years. Again, it's within the rules right now, but it's not exactly in in the spirit of what they're doing with a salary dump.

540k a year for 12 years and the opportunity to get in prime Clayton Oliver would be worth taking for a premiership contender. Especially considering player payments are only going to go up as time goes on, 6 years of paying him an average AFL salary when he's not at the club would be a fine trade off if it put you in a 4 year premiership window.

Again, is there an issue? On a technically no, there isn't, it's just kind of bullshit.

 

[Footy Smarts]

But having the capabilities to pay 2 years, 800k a year and actually doing it are two very different things. Geelong spreading his contract out again probably allowed them to stay under 100% and gave them the opportunity to pay other players they might not have had the money for. Is it good management under the current rules? absolutely.

But this is complete nonsense. There was absolutely zero advantage under the cap to Geelong in extending his contract.

The AFL gives clubs the flexibility to pay 95% - 105% of the cap in any year and make up for it later.

We would've needed to bank 3% of one year's cap to pay Bowes the full $1.6m in the first 2 years compared to the $1.1m we actually paid him ($500k difference in a $15m+ cap). So we just pay 101.5% of the cap the first 2 years and 98.5% the next 2. Job done. It made absolutely zero difference. It's just an accounting gimmick.

It's particularly funny because we might have the most salary cap space of any club in the comp at the moment. We've been front loading contracts recently because we've got nobody in their prime on big money. 1 not particularly large contract wasn't an issue.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Priming the pump so he can criticise the Crows for over paying.

A dollar invested today nets a return tomorrow

Exactly what he’s doing.. and he has endless amounts of form doing just that..

Everything cornes says that has anything to do with the crows comes from a place of pure spite.

Even when it seems he’s being reasonable.. he is doing so with a longer game in mind.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Because the problem with Bowes contract and the reason we needed to trade it was not the 1.6M, it was the timeframe it was meant to be paid in.

A 4 year 550k a year contract is significantly easier to trade or fit into a salary cap on its own than a 2 year 800k contract. If he'd have let us 'smooth' his deal prior to the trade period no doubt pick 7 would never have been involved.

I'm not saying block a contract re-negotiation. By all means, give him a further 2 years at 300k a year, but If you're being given pick 7 as the incentive to take on an 800k a year deal for 2 years, you should be required to take on that part of the contract.

Double edged sword there. What if you then can't get him traded at all except to one club and they want 2 firsts and a player?

 

[stallon]

Double edged sword there. What if you then can't get him traded at all except to one club and they want 2 firsts and a player?

Then too bad?

The club that signed him to the contract has to suffer the consequences

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Then too bad?

The club that signed him to the contract has to suffer the consequences

So you'd rather enforce a 3 way loss?