News Eddie Betts outta here - every day I get in the queue to get on the bus that takes me to you (too much, Magic Bus)

[FR0GGY]

It is relatively common occurrence.

• Player announces he wants out.
• In most cases, the reaction of the Club is "If he doesn't want to be here, we don't want him here". Arrange the trade.
• The "losing club" is prohibited from trading a player out into a salary lower than his contracted figure
• The "gaining Club" is not willing to take on the player at the contracted salary
• "Losing club" agrees to pay a portion to get the deal done.

It's a pragmatic business decision, particularly if the losing club has salary cap pressure. Once it is recognised that the player and club don't have a future together, better to pay - say - 200k for him to play elsewhere than pay him 600k to stay.

It's the only way a Betts trade gets done, and the whisper around the traps is that Jenkins might be traded out the same way.



Contracted players move every trade period. I don't see why that is reason for a FFS.

That’s because we want Jenkins out! The two situations aren’t comparable. It’s not a hard concept.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I don't get it. He has no trade currency. His salary isn't crazy high enough to incentivise trading him and we're not obligated to trade him because he's under contract. So why exactly would we pay for the privilege of sending him to Carlton?

 

[Laphroaig]

That’s because we want Jenkins out! The two situations aren’t comparable. It’s not that hard of a concept.

With respect, the Club is in turmoil. Forcing a player who wants out to stay may not be the best way of dealing with the fractures.

I'm leaving it at that, there's some anger coming through and best not to pursue the subject further.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

With respect, the Club is in turmoil. Forcing a player who wants out to stay may not be the best way of dealing with the fractures.

I'm leaving it at that, there's some anger coming through and best not to pursue the subject further.

You came into the thread, posted a bunch of crap that makes no logical sense, and now you're leaving because you sense anger.

 

[Elite Crow]

You came into the thread, posted a bunch of crap that makes no logical sense, and now you're leaving because you "sense anger".

Should invite him to the politics thread to get a taste of real anger

 

[Mutineer]

It is relatively common occurrence.

• Player announces he wants out.
• In most cases, the reaction of the Club is "If he doesn't want to be here, we don't want him here". Arrange the trade.
• The "losing club" is prohibited from trading a player out into a salary lower than his contracted figure
• The "gaining Club" is not willing to take on the player at the contracted salary
• "Losing club" agrees to pay a portion to get the deal done.

It's a pragmatic business decision, particularly if the losing club has salary cap pressure. Once it is recognised that the player and club don't have a future together, better to pay - say - 200k for him to play elsewhere than pay him 600k to stay.

It's the only way a Betts trade gets done, and the whisper around the traps is that Jenkins might be traded out the same way.



Contracted players move every trade period. I don't see why that is reason for a FFS.

LOL

It won't be.

IF Carlton and Adelaide come to a meeting of the minds, which depends largely on Adelaide's salary cap position, the kicker for Eddie will be after he is delisted. Offer will be one year (current coin, Adelaide paying part of it). Possible trigger clause for a second year on less money, or to be negotiated end 2020.

Agreement in advance for employment in the football department for a couple of years after delisting.

Your post intimated he was to be delisted. Keep it real FFS

 

[1970crow]

Can you provide a few examples.

Still awaiting some examples Laphroaig . Being relatively common, numerous examples should close at hand.

 

[Samcro24]

Your history isn’t too crash hot though is it?

It’s woeful. Odds on to be back ended.

 

[arrowman]

It is relatively common occurrence.

• Player announces he wants out.
• In most cases, the reaction of the Club is "If he doesn't want to be here, we don't want him here". Arrange the trade.
• The "losing club" is prohibited from trading a player out into a salary lower than his contracted figure
• The "gaining Club" is not willing to take on the player at the contracted salary
• "Losing club" agrees to pay a portion to get the deal done.

It's a pragmatic business decision, particularly if the losing club has salary cap pressure. Once it is recognised that the player and club don't have a future together, better to pay - say - 200k for him to play elsewhere than pay him 600k to stay.

It's the only way a Betts trade gets done, and the whisper around the traps is that Jenkins might be traded out the same way.



Contracted players move every trade period. I don't see why that is reason for a FFS.

Jenkins is not a required player, his contract is a bit of a millstone, and he has trade value.

Betts is a required player (for 2020 anyway), he has only one year left on his contract, and he has no trade value.

There is no comparison. Why would we pay part of his 2020 salary to help him get a contract for 2021? Why should a club that wants him so badly that they're prepared to contract him for 2021 be entitled to expect that?

 

[Sanders]

Jenkins is not a required player, his contract is a bit of a millstone, and he has trade value.

Betts is a required player (for 2020 anyway), he has only one year left on his contract, and he has no trade value.

There is no comparison. Why would we pay part of his 2020 salary to help him get a contract for 2021? Why should a club that wants him so badly that they're prepared to contract him for 2021 be entitled to expect that?

Yup

If he wants to leave we’ll help, won’t stand in his way or ask for much in trade

But we’re not going to pay you to play against us

 

[cleanhands]

Yup

If he wants to leave we’ll help, won’t stand in his way or ask for much in trade

But we’re not going to pay you to play against us

You are assuming he makes their senior side at the time or are think Gold Coast

 

[Sanders]

You are assuming he makes their senior side at the time or are think Gold Coast

You’re not serious?

 

[SaltPeter]

Yup

If he wants to leave we’ll help, won’t stand in his way or ask for much in trade

But we’re not going to pay you to play against us

Clearly a more than slighty different scenario than a Mathew Lobbe salary dump

 

[cleanhands]

You’re not serious?

 

[cleanhands]

You think he will be a walk up start to wherever he goes?

 

[Laphroaig]

Still awaiting some examples Laphroaig . Being relatively common, numerous examples should close at hand.

How rude.

Paul Roos, On The Couch.

But what would he know?

 

[1970crow]

How rude.

Paul Roos, On The Couch.

But what would he know?

Name the players.

 

[arrowman]

You think he will be a walk up start to wherever he goes?

Walk up? Best 22-26? He'd better be seen that way, otherwise they're just giving him a 2 year deal because Indigenous Eddie. Which is pretty patronising and I doubt he would want that.

 

[cleanhands]

Walk up? Best 22-26? He'd better be seen that way, otherwise they're just giving him a 2 year deal because Indigenous Eddie. Which is pretty patronising and I doubt he would want that.

Jenkins

 

[arrowman]

Jenkins

This is the Eddie thread! Jenkins? Yes.

 

[hugecannon]

I have no idea why Adelaide would agree to pay any part of Eddie's salary if he moved to another club.

If it helped us get a better trade why wouldn’t we.

If Carlton for example offered the third round pick (approx. 40) on the condition we pay some of his wage, or a 4th/5th round pick with them paying all his salary we’d have to look at the options.

 

[hey shorty]

If it helped us get a better trade why wouldn’t we.

If Carlton for example offered the third round pick (approx. 40) on the condition we pay some of his wage, or a 4th/5th round pick with them paying all his salary we’d have to look at the options.

It hamstrings us, and we don't want to lose him. I wouldnt be doing it.

Jenkins is a different story.

 

[skittlebrew]

With respect, the Club is in turmoil. Forcing a player who wants out to stay may not be the best way of dealing with the fractures.

I'm leaving it at that, there's some anger coming through and best not to pursue the subject further.

If our club is in 'turmoil' then what word would you use to describe your club over the last 5+ years?

 

[arrowman]

If it helped us get a better trade why wouldn’t we.

If Carlton for example offered the third round pick (approx. 40) on the condition we pay some of his wage, or a 4th/5th round pick with them paying all his salary we’d have to look at the options.

I dunno. IMO anyway a third round pick is worth a fair bit more than a 4th/5th (especially with Hamish in charge ) but how much are you prepared to pay for that in $ terms? So I guess it's a possibility, but at the same time I'd be saying - look, he's a required player for us, you want him badly enough to (presumably) give him an extra year, but you're not prepared to pay him for 2020 and pony up even a token 3rd rounder? But I guess if it came down to it I might be prepared to pay $200K or so for the difference. Dunno.

 

[the universal]

If our club is in 'turmoil' then what word would you use to describe your club over the last 5+ years?

Carlton have had a satisfactory couple of months in the space of 5 years (and still finish 3rd last) and apparently that's what it takes to build the arrogance right back up for their supporters.