- Feb 15, 2006
- 5,588
- 3,527
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Sunderland & Penrith
These days recruitment departments are so good they would all have computer systems that would log estimated wages and when they come out of contract.
Traded Jack Bowes [Traded to Geelong with #7 for F3]
- Thread starter Jirik13
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Aug 20, 2013
- 2,623
- 3,334
Thanks to those who replied. Feck me dead...GC are handing over 7 simply for a club to take a player off their hands.
What a deal for the Cats. And the premiers can afford his salary to boot...super impressive salary cap management (nothing to see here...move along).
What a deal for the Cats. And the premiers can afford his salary to boot...super impressive salary cap management (nothing to see here...move along).
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,631
- 43,775
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
We keep getting told they were in to him anyway. And are paying him an average salary.
Why on Earth are GCS still handing over the pick ???
- Apr 18, 2005
- 31,515
- 27,477
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Why the hell would you want to live in Western Sydney? Seriously, what an absolute bin fire.
Because Geelong weren't going to take on his full salary.
The pick ensured two things.
1. Other clubs able/willing to take on the contract would now be interested
2. Geelong would take on 100% of the contract
No. The plan was to bring in Bruhn and Hopper (and it seems Bowes) which would have taken our first rounders this year and next.
Richmond trumped us for Hopper, then Henry decided he wanted to come to Geelong. Plan B, still no first rounders.
Then pick 7 gets involved. But if we get 7 I think we will be using it in the draft.
- Banned
- #1,583
He must be one hell of a player, has to be more to this surely, maybe the Suns are aware of some ‘issues’ no one else is, that would be the only way this makes sense, or he’s actually dead and the Suns are pulling a weekend at Burnies on our arse.
Ok my unwatch didn't work the 1st time, have you seen a lot of Jhye Clark?
I don't like his kicking so no, would not be taking him at pick 7.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,631
- 43,775
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
It was smoothed out over 4 years and is $100k above average salary per year.
The funny thing will be if they include match payments and he ends up in the VFL for most of it. Would be a funny autobiography at the end of his career.
Boxhead_31
The Greatest Team Of All
- Oct 12, 2007
- 37,135
- 52,184
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- South BHFL
Forgot the best part of this.
Geelong used this pick to draft Tim Kelly the return of which led to Jeremy Cameron coming to the club and winning the club's 10th flag
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,631
- 43,775
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
A Geelong kid. Wait 2 years and get him with a late 1st or early 2nd after GWS or GCS get him.
- Banned
- #1,588
I read it all, good read, I agree the new expansion clubs need a bigger salary cap especially, and this a Bowes deal should not be able to be stretched out.'It's technically within the rules, so how could it be unfair?'
I created this BigFooty account to respond to comments like this.
I'm sick and tired of Geelong supporters pretending like no one is allowed to criticise the grotesque injustice of this situation. Yes, your club is AMAZING at looting a busted system. Now, can we talk about how busted the system is?
Nobody wants to punish Geelong specifically, you myopic manatee. No club (including Hawthorn), should be able to abuse the AFL system to this extent. Geelong just won the premiership, so obviously this coup is particularly egregious - but this Bowes trade is really just the most recent of a long line of abject fleecing that the AFL has been either too docile, or too idiotic to intervene on. For all their 'equalisation' measures, teams like Geelong are making a mockery of out their league under their very noses.
The 'player empowerment era' means that once a player (contracted or not, it really doesn't matter) nominates his club of choice (almost always a rich, contending club), the club is held utterly hostage. So while you may be benefitting from it now, can you not see how perilous it is for the long-term health of the game?
GWS and GCS have been drafting and developing elite young talent for Years just for them to eventually request a trade to a wealthy Victorian club - hence, GWS and GCS are forced to trade them for a bag of chips (as they have 0 bargaining power) or hold them to their contract just to watch them walk away for free.
But why is this particularly scenario so terrible for the welfare of the game? Well, the shambolic Gold Coast front office - throwing away a former top 10 pick and pick 7, not even to the highest bidder, but to the former premier, just because Bowes says so? Not trading for established talent,or future picks, or even just offering Bowes and 2nd... and rich, established, contending clubs capitalising on their incompotence. Bowes is getting paid 1.6 million to be a VFL player, and yet, Gold Coast will let him choose where he wants to go, instead of seeking the best deal for him and pick 7? How can this possibly be allowed?
And Geelong being allowed to restructure a 1.6 2 year deal over 4 years - thereby completely shattering the integrity of a salary dump. I don't care whether the shifting of Bowes' contract aligns with the rulebook - it's a disgrace that Geelong don't have to cop the financial reprecusions of a SALARY-DUMP until well down the track.
Geelong fans, spare me: young, highly-talented contracted players like Bruhn chasing premierships at Geelong is not necessarily a reflection of a 'well run club'. It's more of a 'right place, right time' kind of thing. You just won a premiership, so obviously, you're a destination club. Which makes you more likely to win another premiership, which makes you more of a destination club. And what's GWS supposed to do? Any ex-Geelong area player (Danger, Cameron, the list goes on) can claim 'homesickness' (yeah, I don't buy it) and extort a trade from the inter-state clubs they were drafted to. Gold Coast and GWS fatten young prospects up, just for them to be poached by the likes of Geelong or Richmond at the first available opportunity. We've seen it time and time again, and it's clearly not getting any better. Ironically, even if Gold Coast or some other inter-state had taken Jhye Clark with that very same Pick 7, he probably would've requested a trade back to Geelong anyway.
The same goes for clubs in trouble like North Melbourne with Jason Horne-Francis. If he was really 'homesick', he would wager for any sort of return to SA. But of course, he wants PORT. He wants to play for a CONTENDER. Adelaide may have more to offer North, but because JHF chose Port, North have no bargaining power. They will either have to either ship away the former Number 1 pick for unders, or have to deal with a disgruntled JHF till he can leave of his own volition. They too fall victim to the 'player empowerment era'.
Current/future example: GWS landed a star in Taranto for pick 2. They developed him. He wanted to leave to Richmond. Richmond gave them pick 12 and 19. Hyopthetically, GWS lands a star in pick 12. They develop him. He wants to leave to Hawthorn. Hawthorn give them pick 16. Etc etc. Do you not see the vicious cycle unfolding here? GWS and Gold Coast are rendered mere nursing homes, because the current system gives them no power. Draft picks are meaningless to these clubs at the moment, so giving them more draft picks won't help, it'll just give the powerhouses more chances to establish dynasties.
Yes, anyone would've snatched the Bowes deal if they had a chance, Hawthorn included. That's not the point. The system is fundementally broken. I'm sick of Bowes, of Cameron, of Dangerfield, of Hopper, of Lynch, of Prestia snaking their way to premiership clubs, who aren't punished in salary for making the acquisition. Think Bowes and Pick 7 as Kevin Durant to the Warriors - when will a club like Geelong ever have to rebuild, when dysfunctional clubs like Gold Coast are jumping up and down to hand them prize draft picks, and all their players are looking to end up there anyway?
The former premiers shouldn't be allowed to acquire Bowes and Pick 7 for scraps, but they will, so that's that. Now it's up to the AFL to make sure it can't happen again. Restrictions on top 2/4/8 teams from acquiring talent? Reconstruction of the free agency / trade period system? Considerably greater salary cap for GCS and GWS? Longer rookie contracts? Just anything to restore some semblance of power to clubs, because literally anything is better than what we have right now.
This is bigger than any individual club. AFL is a SHAMBLES right now, and I'm afraid without decisive action, it'll only get worse.
No, I read who they selected, but didn't mention it because that was down to good drafting and so fair play.
The Motlop compensation, however, to enable an AFL good feel story, together, with this latest deal relying upon inside information is on the nose.
I want to know, is this the first time some of you guys have ever seen a salary cap dump trade? It's something that always happens in American sports, especially the NBA.
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 108,047
- 149,985
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
tl;dr version'It's technically within the rules, so how could it be unfair?'
I created this BigFooty account to respond to comments like this.
I'm sick and tired of Geelong supporters pretending like no one is allowed to criticise the grotesque injustice of this situation. Yes, your club is AMAZING at looting a busted system. Now, can we talk about how busted the system is?
Nobody wants to punish Geelong specifically, you myopic manatee. No club (including Hawthorn), should be able to abuse the AFL system to this extent. Geelong just won the premiership, so obviously this coup is particularly egregious - but this Bowes trade is really just the most recent of a long line of abject fleecing that the AFL has been either too docile, or too idiotic to intervene on. For all their 'equalisation' measures, teams like Geelong are making a mockery of out their league under their very noses.
The 'player empowerment era' means that once a player (contracted or not, it really doesn't matter) nominates his club of choice (almost always a rich, contending club), the club is held utterly hostage. So while you may be benefitting from it now, can you not see how perilous it is for the long-term health of the game?
GWS and GCS have been drafting and developing elite young talent for Years just for them to eventually request a trade to a wealthy Victorian club - hence, GWS and GCS are forced to trade them for a bag of chips (as they have 0 bargaining power) or hold them to their contract just to watch them walk away for free.
But why is this particularly scenario so terrible for the welfare of the game? Well, the shambolic Gold Coast front office - throwing away a former top 10 pick and pick 7, not even to the highest bidder, but to the former premier, just because Bowes says so? Not trading for established talent,or future picks, or even just offering Bowes and 2nd... and rich, established, contending clubs capitalising on their incompotence. Bowes is getting paid 1.6 million to be a VFL player, and yet, Gold Coast will let him choose where he wants to go, instead of seeking the best deal for him and pick 7? How can this possibly be allowed?
And Geelong being allowed to restructure a 1.6 2 year deal over 4 years - thereby completely shattering the integrity of a salary dump. I don't care whether the shifting of Bowes' contract aligns with the rulebook - it's a disgrace that Geelong don't have to cop the financial reprecusions of a SALARY-DUMP until well down the track.
Geelong fans, spare me: young, highly-talented contracted players like Bruhn chasing premierships at Geelong is not necessarily a reflection of a 'well run club'. It's more of a 'right place, right time' kind of thing. You just won a premiership, so obviously, you're a destination club. Which makes you more likely to win another premiership, which makes you more of a destination club. And what's GWS supposed to do? Any ex-Geelong area player (Danger, Cameron, the list goes on) can claim 'homesickness' (yeah, I don't buy it) and extort a trade from the inter-state clubs they were drafted to. Gold Coast and GWS fatten young prospects up, just for them to be poached by the likes of Geelong or Richmond at the first available opportunity. We've seen it time and time again, and it's clearly not getting any better. Ironically, even if Gold Coast or some other inter-state had taken Jhye Clark with that very same Pick 7, he probably would've requested a trade back to Geelong anyway.
The same goes for clubs in trouble like North Melbourne with Jason Horne-Francis. If he was really 'homesick', he would wager for any sort of return to SA. But of course, he wants PORT. He wants to play for a CONTENDER. Adelaide may have more to offer North, but because JHF chose Port, North have no bargaining power. They will either have to either ship away the former Number 1 pick for unders, or have to deal with a disgruntled JHF till he can leave of his own volition. They too fall victim to the 'player empowerment era'.
Current/future example: GWS landed a star in Taranto for pick 2. They developed him. He wanted to leave to Richmond. Richmond gave them pick 12 and 19. Hyopthetically, GWS lands a star in pick 12. They develop him. He wants to leave to Hawthorn. Hawthorn give them pick 16. Etc etc. Do you not see the vicious cycle unfolding here? GWS and Gold Coast are rendered mere nursing homes, because the current system gives them no power. Draft picks are meaningless to these clubs at the moment, so giving them more draft picks won't help, it'll just give the powerhouses more chances to establish dynasties.
Yes, anyone would've snatched the Bowes deal if they had a chance, Hawthorn included. That's not the point. The system is fundementally broken. I'm sick of Bowes, of Cameron, of Dangerfield, of Hopper, of Lynch, of Prestia snaking their way to premiership clubs, who aren't punished in salary for making the acquisition. Think Bowes and Pick 7 as Kevin Durant to the Warriors - when will a club like Geelong ever have to rebuild, when dysfunctional clubs like Gold Coast are jumping up and down to hand them prize draft picks, and all their players are looking to end up there anyway?
The former premiers shouldn't be allowed to acquire Bowes and Pick 7 for scraps, but they will, so that's that. Now it's up to the AFL to make sure it can't happen again. Restrictions on top 2/4/8 teams from acquiring talent? Reconstruction of the free agency / trade period system? Considerably greater salary cap for GCS and GWS? Longer rookie contracts? Just anything to restore some semblance of power to clubs, because literally anything is better than what we have right now.
This is bigger than any individual club. AFL is a SHAMBLES right now, and I'm afraid without decisive action, it'll only get worse.
GWS and Gold Coast have for years been mismanaging their list in various forms. From salary cap issues to having too many mids and thus playing Bruhn in a pocket. They need to be better, not bitter. Bit like most posters in here atm.
Since the year 2000 there have been 15 clubs to make a grand final and a total of 11 different premiers. 17 clubs have also finished bottom 4.
If you want a debate over free agency and its foibles you'll get no argument that the compensation element negatively impacts 16 unaffected clubs each transactions. Hardly fair for literally just existing to have your draft hand weakened. But that's not what's happening here is it??
If we purely look at this set of acquisitions this year we are merely using the draft picks we've been allocated and the cap space we have available like all clubs. As a club we haven't even utilised FA either. Sam Blease and Stengle as DFA and Scott Selwood unmatched. Dangerfield and Cameron were trades. The former being so we'd pay him less and not break our salary cap. That's just good list management.
but alas;
- Non-AFL areas struggle to retain or attract players. WA/SA clubs have no issues attracting or retaining players, plenty of home state players to go around. Even non native players are often comfortable living in an AFL centric state. Syd and BL are established enough that this isn't a problem and have a Vic based section of fans also. GCS and GWS bleed players. They are in non-AFL states and no one cares about them so they overpay to retain its core players and overpay to attract what you'd consider role players and journeymen. I can't see solution for the AFL, they do need to keep growing the game and eventually AFL heartlands will over saturate.
- Melbourne is inequitable, over-saturated and two tiered. There's a power 4-5 clubs in Melbourne that have numerous intangible advantages over the 3-4 less well off. 9 clubs fighting over players, sponsors and fans is too much for there to be evenness of outcomes.
- Would remove everything bar F/S. NGA academies are a lottery in zoning... Which is why they dumped the zone system in the first place for the draft model. Academies being available for less than 25% of clubs and yet for 2/4 clubs it isn't helping retain talent or gain on field success is something we can do without.
- I would bring back COLA. Some areas are more expensive. However, I would have it completely removed from the clubs. They get the same cap as everyone else. lower paid players in markets like Sydney would be allowed under NDA to apply to the AFLPA/AFL for COLA and it can then be judged by the governing body and the money comes out of the AFL's money. This allows lower paid players in these markets to get some assistance but doesn't allow clubs to manipulate their cap. They wouldn't know what players have COLA and how much they have.
- The draft mechanism is one where I'm not sure what they could do. Broadcasters want more access to players, clubs want players for certain periods over off-season. The AFL hasn't increased the cap as much as players want relative to how much they've grown broadcast agreements so trade-offs negotiated via the AFLPA is where we are. For the length and speed of the season they demanded a 2nd bye... The AFL give this in the form of pre-finals. Those that miss out get a 6 month bye and finals players get their 2nd rest. Clubs have to give minimum time off before pre-season... and the AFL had to bring in Free Agency so that there is easier movement for players and that the modest cap increases allow players to get pay-days they may not get by staying at their club. Crucially the AFL would never allow FA without clubs getting compensated so here we are. In a mess of a system.
- Aug 18, 2018
- 32,178
- 54,735
- AFL Club
- Geelong
How much if this is things that you actually know and how much is things made up on the internet?
This is the one part of your post that is indisputable imo and a genuine fault in the current system. Gold Coast have an unfathomably bad contract on their hands that is so bad they need to include a top 10 pick just to offload it. They can’t “smooth out” the deal as Bowes does not want to re-sign, but Bowes can agree to a 4 or 5 year deal with any club he wants and save his new club from wearing the crazy salary. So his new club, in this case Geelong, get a serviceable player on a medium salary for a few years, and get Pick 7 for their troubles. That is a problem. I would feel guilty if my club Collingwood were on the receiving end. If Geelong are going to cop the benefit of improving their draft hand for taking this contract, they should have to wear the full salary for the two years he has left to run.
- Aug 18, 2018
- 32,178
- 54,735
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Yeah it is a pretty weird alignment of the rules. Not sure how you equalise it without adjusting the expansion clubs caps up
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,631
- 43,775
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Hawks, Dons, Roos and possibly even Saints would have paid those 2 years and offered avg money for another 2.
The AFL basically gifted him to Geelong with the way they set this up in the last week.
I’ll never wrap my head around why Gold Coast need to throw a pick 7 into the abyss just to offload him. Can they not afford to pay 50% of his salary for two years, let a club take him for $400k for a late pick, and then GC can take pick 7 to the draft? Without trying to sound like a nutter conspiracist, this has some funk about it.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,631
- 43,775
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Despite the claims, noone would have taken him on for $400k a year let alone $800k a year without the pick 7.
GCS should give pick 7 to Geelong but demand pick 18 and their future 1st.
- Banned
- #1,598
Never heard of a team who’s played finals for the last 120 years and the reigning premiers having room to facilitate such a trade, along with 3 other highly rated players, I’m sure your cap is legit, it’s the 3rd party deals that need to be seriously looked at.
Art Vandelay_
TheBrownDog
- Oct 28, 2012
- 108,047
- 149,985
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers - Tottenham
We've just retired 3 veterans. Higgins and Dahlhaus were on roughly 500k each. No idea what the captain was on. Even at AFL average wages we're still looking at 1.35m in salary freed up from these retirees. And we'd be budgeting future years around the 8 more impending retirements.
Or has everyone forgotten that we were mocked as Dad's Army that neglected youth for overpaid mercenaries? Well they're retiring now so we have cap space to burn, and picks regenerate every year.
- Feb 12, 2017
- 19,112
- 50,651
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- have been WARPED by Geelong
This is what you get for making fun of us for having too many old blokes. Now after winning the flag we're taking all the young talent in the comp, and the high draft picks to boot.
Hand 'em over.
Hand 'em over.
