Traded Jared Polec [traded to North Melbourne with Pittard and #48 for #11 and 2019 fourth round pick]

[Damon_3388]

Both your coach and president (or whatever Koch is) have been quoted as saying that Polec doesn't deserve the money we've offered him and by all appearances are standing firm on a 500k three year deal. So the question to ask then is when we hit the start of trade discussions should the deal be based upon where North values him or should it be where Port values him based on their own public views? That Polec is out of contract means it's closer towards the latter.

Now, according to this article: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...t/news-story/7a935910f59170b0c540a21200bd945a Port valued Jack Watts at 500k @ three years (the fact Melbourne are tipping in neither here nor there) which is the exact value you've placed on Polec. Considering you paid pick 31 for Watts and are in a position where you could lose the player altogether it stands to reason North will be approaching this trade with a view to hold on to pick 11 does it not? Based on the above info the pick 20 buttox presented actually represents very fair value in the market Port itself established less than a year ago.

Considering he's out of contract, it's farcical that a trade is necessary for another club to acquire him. That's the AFL's half-arsed, backward system for you though

It should be "List spot + Cap Space = Means to potentially sign an uncontracted player". Yes, the losing club then loses the player "for nothing", but that's the point. They lose. If they wanted to retain the player, then they've had plenty of opportunity to do so, and have the opportunity to re-load with their newly-free list spot and cap space themselves.

 

[dunno4]

Just spoken to a list manger I know well. Told me both Polec and Gaff to North done deal. That’s his opinion anyway.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[blackshadow]

I would assume Dusty is paid by Puma to appear in their advertising campaigns, and gets free gear from them too. They're leveraging his star power and notoriety, to sell more of their product. You know, the same as a lot of athletes and celebrities. Why does he have to have some actual working role at the company beyond that?

As a general comment, why can't AFL players have regular sponsorship and endorsement deals, just like athletes do in any other sport? Why does the club or league have to be involved? Why is it so different for footy players? Why are they apparently only allowed to earn money from their playing contract, and not seek further income and opportunities outside of football?

Because the AFL plays by their own rules and the players agree to be bound by the anti competitive aspects of the AFL rules.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

 

[Damon_3388]

Because the AFL plays by their own rules and the players agree to be bound by the anti competitive aspects of the AFL rules.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

I don't get why the AFL would have those rules in the first place. No other major sporting league seemingly does.

If you want blokes to set themselves up for life after footy, then let them make money outside of footy while they're playing. They only get one shot at the fame and notoriety that professional sport affords them, so allow them to make the most of it.

 

[blackshadow]

I don't get why the AFL would have those rules in the first place. No other major sporting league seemingly does.

If you want blokes to set themselves up for life after footy, then let them make money outside of footy while they're playing. They only get one shot at the fame and notoriety that professional sport affords them, so allow them to make the most of it.

They want to place caps on earnings so they can give a semblance of a level playing field.

That's why they have things like salary caps, drafts, trading rules, free agency restrictions etc



Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

 

[philthy05]

Both your coach and president (or whatever Koch is) have been quoted as saying that Polec doesn't deserve the money we've offered him and by all appearances are standing firm on a 500k three year deal. So the question to ask then is when we hit the start of trade discussions should the deal be based upon where North values him or should it be where Port values him based on their own public views? That Polec is out of contract means it's closer towards the latter.

Now, according to this article: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...t/news-story/7a935910f59170b0c540a21200bd945a Port valued Jack Watts at 500k @ three years (the fact Melbourne are tipping in neither here nor there) which is the exact value you've placed on Polec. Considering you paid pick 31 for Watts and are in a position where you could lose the player altogether it stands to reason North will be approaching this trade with a view to hold on to pick 11 does it not? Based on the above info the pick 20 buttox presented actually represents very fair value in the market Port itself established less than a year ago.

What a load of horse shit.

Such much supposition and ignoring of factors here.

 

[parvey]

Just spoken to a list manger I know well. Told me both Polec and Gaff to North done deal. That’s his opinion anyway.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Any news on who Colingwood have

 

[blackshadow]

What a load of horse shit.

Such much supposition and ignoring of factors here.

Yes there is.

By Port supporters.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

 

[The Filth Wizard]

What a load of horse shit.

Such much supposition and ignoring of factors here.

Illuminate me without presenting any supposition.

 

[Damon_3388]

They want to place caps on earnings so they can give a semblance of a level playing field.

That's why they have things like salary caps, drafts, trading rules, free agency restrictions etc

Yeah I get that, but why do sponsorship deals have to involve the club and the league at all?

For example, LeBron James' endorsement and sponsorship deal with Nike (or the numerous other brands) has nothing to do with the NBA or the club he's playing for, so why is footy any different?

Obviously the scale of potential deals is going to be less, but why does the league or the Tigers have to have any involvement or say-so over Dusty's deal with Puma (or any other player's potential sponsorships or endorsements) at all? It should be an arrangement between the player, their management, and the brand.

 

[BRAB]

Illuminate me without presenting any supposition.

Got him filth.

 

[blackshadow]

Yeah I get that, but why do sponsorship deals have to involve the club and the league at all?

For example, LeBron James' endorsement and sponsorship deal with Nike (or the numerous other brands) has nothing to do with the NBA or the club he's playing for, so why is footy any different?

Obviously the scale of potential deals is going to be less, but why does the league or the Tigers have to have any involvement or say-so over Dusty's deal with Puma (or any other player's potential sponsorships or endorsements) at all? It should be an arrangement between the player, their management, and the brand.

Player endorsements are also covered under the agreement between players and the AFL.

I'm not down with the actual specifics but I imagine it's all about the AFL keeping control of their brand as well as some semblance of a level playing field regarding player earnings.

For example I don't think the AFL would be too happy if Jake Stringer did a deal with a phillipino tour operator promoting teenage bunga bunga tours.

I'm sure if players or clubs challenged in court over the AFL salary cap6, trading etc they would win as it would be seen as restraint of trade but players and clubs aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

 

[Damon_3388]

Player endorsements are also covered under the agreement between players and the AFL.

I'm not down with the actual specifics but I imagine it's all about the AFL keeping control of their brand as well as some semblance of a level playing field regarding player earnings.

For example I don't think the AFL would be too happy if Jake Stringer did a deal with a phillipino tour operator promoting teenage bunga bunga tours.

I'm sure if players or clubs challenged in court over the AFL salary cap6, trading etc they would win as it would be seen as restraint of trade but players and clubs aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

I still don't really the reasons why endorsements or sponsorships are not allowed or are frowned upon, especially if arranged independently of the club and league.

Obviously, players and managers would try to involve themselves with brands and causes that they feel would be good for their image, and if the league didn't approve of it from a values perspective, fair enough. But I don't see why players seemingly can't or don't have more sponsorships or endorsements. Given the notoriety that footy players have, and the endless endorsements that many professional athletes line their pockets with all over the world, it feels like so much potential money is being left on the table by managers, players, and companies outside of football.

 

[BrightSideBard]

Hi guys, I saw my North friend in Australia like this video post on twitter...is this true? It's been done already or? Seems a fake video? Or at least the subtitle text seems fake, but not sure on the rest?

 

[Wild Bill]

Hi guys, I saw my North friend in Australia like this video post on twitter...is this true? It's been done already or? Seems a fake video? Or at least the subtitle text seems fake, but not sure on the rest?

You’re not sure if this is fake?

 

[shinboner spiggs]

Hi guys, I saw my North friend in Australia like this video post on twitter...is this true? It's been done already or? Seems a fake video? Or at least the subtitle text seems fake, but not sure on the rest?

Mr Polec, your silence will only make us pay you a 20 million dollar contract.

 

[BrightSideBard]

You’re not sure if this is fake?

Well my North friend said the deal was done so the part I wasn't sure on was the video part as I think the subtitle text was added. I am not sure if a general manager would say those words!

 

[SpiderBurton22]

Well my North friend said the deal was done so the part I wasn't sure on was the video part as I think the subtitle text was added. I am not sure if a general manager would say those words!

It's 100% not fake.

 

[philthy05]

Still better than the job they did on cavills moustache in justice league

 

[dunno4]

Any news on who Colingwood have

Sadly no. He said his club wouldn’t be wasting time on Polec or Gaff as he thought it was as good as done. He didn’t have anything else even mildly interesting on anything else. Everything else up in the air. I asked about Darcy Moore he said until Darcy makes up his mind he won’t put too much effort into it.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TigerTime88]

I don’t mind this from North. He’s not a star but if they are paying him say 800k it’s worth it to get him across. They must have an absolute heap of cap room. Outside of Brown I’m not sure who there too paid player would be outside or maybe Higgins?

Gaff and Polec and I think they could almost go again next year.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Thewlis Dish]

I don’t mind this from North. He’s not a star but if they are paying him say 800k it’s worth it to get him across. They must have an absolute heap of cap room. Outside of Brown I’m not sure who there too paid player would be outside or maybe Higgins?

Goldstein.

 

[Snake_Baker]

If Port are almost maxed out, and Lycett is on his way there, then Polec's trading price just got a LOT cheaper.

 

[philthy05]

If Port are almost maxed out, and Lycett is on his way there, then Polec's trading price just got a LOT cheaper.

Yeah port aren’t almost maxed out. But nice try.

 

[Hootini]

Yeah port aren’t almost maxed out. But nice try.

Cause thats why you're not hesitating to pay him what we're offering.