Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVI

[Lore]

Maybe they could look at restrictions around big renegotiation. It gas to be within XXX% of the original terms .

The Cats play the system well, I don't have an issue with it from their side at all.


The opportunity to play for the reining premiers, be playing finals. You'd be stupid to pass that up, I don't blame Bowes either, smart on his pov.

TheGrizz's idea about having different rules for a trade being approved depending on whether it's been restructured is pretty reasonable I think. So a re-structured one has to be within 200 draft points (which is the ordinary rule of thumb for pick only trades anyway), but a salary dump can be more unequal.


I guess the other option is that the actual salary space can be traded separately. So all trades have to be equitable but Gold Coast could trade salary space from Hawthorn, such that they can either keep the player or negotiate for a better price because they're not a motivated seller.

 

[citizen-erased]

So is sour grapes.

partially
but also there's a fairness element.

This probably should have come up when GCS handed 11 over for 27 and a pick in the 60s a few years ago.
600pt bonus to the cats
this one is 1100+

Mainly surprised the AFL is ok with this.
they blocked a swans/dees trade recently cos they didn't like the outcome of the trade
Yet this is ok?

the draft is supposed to be the great equalisation mechanism.

 

[Pweter]

If the Bowes + 7 for a handful of magic beans deal goes through, I'd be happy as a pig in shit if I were a Cats supporter.

We and the rest of the comp are only sooking it up because it's not us. Fact is no rules are being broken, and if the AFL signs off on it then so be it.

 

[TheGrizz]

TheGrizz's idea about having different rules for a trade being approved depending on whether it's been restructured is pretty reasonable I think. So a re-structured one has to be within 200 draft points (which is the ordinary rule of thumb for pick only trades anyway), but a salary dump can be more unequal.


I guess the other option is that the actual salary space can be traded separately. So all trades have to be equitable but Gold Coast could trade salary space from Hawthorn, such that they can either keep the player or negotiate for a better price because they're not a motivated seller.

I think that is in the frame for the next couple of years I read somewhere.

Essentially, GWS could trade pick 19 to us for 1m in cap space to keep Hopper and Bruhn and our cap for next year goes from 3m to 2m spare for example.

 

[Doss]

Let’s face it, for the sake of 50k a year when the lesser of the offers is probably still 400k+ and the trade off is the smaller offer lands you at the best run club in the land which due to its location offers some pretty unique lifestyle opportunities, versus landing at us, the worst run club in the land…

Yeah, if I was Bowes I’d choose Geelong too.

 

[boncer34]

Simple fix is that all contracts are with the AFL not a club, so the bonuses etc travel with the contract. Seeing as players can't be tradede without their say-so, if they don't think they can hit the bonuses they don't ok the trade
I know this is just wishful thinking on my part as the AFL doesn't seem to have any interest in changing the model, it just seems really 'dumb' to me.

That's not really a simple fix though. Player needs out from a club for whatever reason, seems unfair to disadvantage them. And the AFLPA will never sign it off.

 

[boncer34]

If the Bowes + 7 for a handful of magic beans deal goes through, I'd be happy as a pig in s**t if I were a Cats supporter.

We and the rest of the comp are only sooking it up because it's not us. Fact is no rules are being broken, and if the AFL signs off on it then so be it.

I didn't want to put it so bluntly but yes.

 

[boncer34]

partially
but also there's a fairness element.

This probably should have come up when GCS handed 11 over for 27 and a pick in the 60s a few years ago.
600pt bonus to the cats
this one is 1100+

Mainly surprised the AFL is ok with this.
they blocked a swans/dees trade recently cos they didn't like the outcome of the trade
Yet this is ok?

the draft is supposed to be the great equalisation mechanism.

The rules have changed.

 

[Lore]

Let’s face it, for the sake of 50k a year when the lesser of the offers is probably still 400k+ and the trade off is the smaller offer lands you at the best run club in the land which due to its location offers some pretty unique lifestyle opportunities, versus landing at us, the worst run club in the land…

Yeah, if I was Bowes I’d choose Geelong too.

For sure, and the difference would be offset by prize money, assuming you can get a game.

 

[baz_machine]

Clubs should be able to trade players to whoever is willing to pay the contract ala MLB.
Increase the draft age to 20/21.
Unrestricted Free Agency at 6 years?

Then when players sign up to the draft, they know they are playing for a contract (not a club) and after 6 years service, they can go wherever.

I doubt the AFL / AFLPA will ever sign up to that model.

 

[citizen-erased]

TheGrizz's idea about having different rules for a trade being approved depending on whether it's been restructured is pretty reasonable I think. So a re-structured one has to be within 200 draft points (which is the ordinary rule of thumb for pick only trades anyway), but a salary dump can be more unequal.


I guess the other option is that the actual salary space can be traded separately. So all trades have to be equitable but Gold Coast could trade salary space from Hawthorn, such that they can either keep the player or negotiate for a better price because they're not a motivated seller.

I think both would be fine as long as you stick to the original contract terms.
Bowes' contract over 4 years probably isn't as big an issue for GCS as it is over 2. The 800k p.a over 2 years is what hurts their cap. So to help them, it should move as is.
I guess the question is why are GCS handing over a top 10 academy kid + pick 7 when they could do what Geelong is doing with Bowes' contract.

Answer is the gift they got in 2019 was overkill and they can be flippant with the picks
GCS got Rowell, Davies and Jeffrey for free
Pick 22 in 2019 (which they traded up for Flanders)
Pick 11 in 2020 (which they traded back to 27, losing 600pts)
Pick 19 in 2021 (which they gave away with Brodie) for a pick I think went on Berry

what's 7 to them.

 

[citizen-erased]

The rules have changed.

whilst they have, i'm pretty sure AFL is still checking and signing off trades

not sure how this is ok even with the changes.

 

[boncer34]

whilst they have, i'm pretty sure AFL is still checking and signing off trades

not sure how this is ok even with the changes.

Because the change was designed to specifically allow trades like this

 

[Beerfish]

Let’s face it, for the sake of 50k a year when the lesser of the offers is probably still 400k+ and the trade off is the smaller offer lands you at the best run club in the land which due to its location offers some pretty unique lifestyle opportunities, versus landing at us, the worst run club in the land…

Yeah, if I was Bowes I’d choose Geelong too.

But why?

 

[Pweter]

But why?

Farms and surfing

 

[DonsRule]

Let’s face it, for the sake of 50k a year when the lesser of the offers is probably still 400k+ and the trade off is the smaller offer lands you at the best run club in the land which due to its location offers some pretty unique lifestyle opportunities, versus landing at us, the worst run club in the land…

Yeah, if I was Bowes I’d choose Geelong too.

I for 50K the difference, I don't think think their is anything anyone could do about it, I think maybe there should be questions if he was $800k p.a for 2 years being redone as $500K p.a. over 4 a $300k drop in what they were originally owned may be something they should look at. But no one has broken any rules, smart by all involved I don't have an issue with it I would almost certainly do the same.

 

[faible]

I for 50K the difference, I don't think think their is anything anyone could do about it, I think maybe there should be questions if he was $800k p.a for 2 years being redone as $500K p.a. over 4 a $300k drop in what they were originally owned may be something they should look at. But no one has broken any rules, smart by all involved I don't have an issue with it I would almost certainly do the same.

This'll end up like when Sydney gamed the live trade / bidding system and every other club got the loophole cut off.

Geelong will make the trade, the AFL will add in rules to stop it happening like this in future, everyone but Geelong misses out.

 

[BrunoV]

If the Bowes + 7 for a handful of magic beans deal goes through, I'd be happy as a pig in s**t if I were a Cats supporter.

We and the rest of the comp are only sooking it up because it's not us. Fact is no rules are being broken, and if the AFL signs off on it then so be it.

And not to mention that the proposed rule makes life harder for the player and for the dumping club.

All due to some sour grapes that the reigning premier was the only club with the foresight to look into the availability of a former top 10 pick struggling for game time.

You don't make up rules on the fly like this, especially when sour grapes is the overriding factor.

 

[citizen-erased]

This'll end up like when Sydney gamed the live trade / bidding system and every other club got the loophole cut off.

Geelong will make the trade, the AFL will add in rules to stop it happening like this in future, everyone but Geelong misses out.

and the NGA stuff with JUH.

Dees gotta be wondering why they miss a top 3 talent after the dogs get pick 1.
this loophole won't last and I suspect the AFL change it so the deal is taken on as is and not altered. Once altered, that's a basic trade and it should be assessed as such. 7 & Bowes on an average wage over 4 years is not the same as 7 & Bowes on 800k p.a over 2. By all means let him add term and $$ but the 800k should be in Geelong's cap next year.

 

[BrunoV]

and the NGA stuff with JUH.

Dees gotta be wondering why they miss a top 3 talent after the dogs get pick 1.
this loophole won't last and I suspect the AFL change it so the deal is taken on as is and not altered. Once altered, that's a basic trade and it should be assessed as such. 7 & Bowes on an average wage over 4 years is not the same as 7 & Bowes on 800k p.a over 2. By all means let him add term and $$ but the 800k should be in Geelong's cap next year.

So when can you then restructure the deal of an incoming player?

Does it have to become the only scenario in the AFL that a contract can't be renegotiated, because of sour grapes?

The AFL hasn't approved 7 yet.

You should be more worried that the premier sees a need for Bowes in its midfield when we see no hole.

 

[Beerfish]

You don't make up rules on the fly like this, especially when sour grapes is the overriding factor.

AFL: Hold my beer.

 

[BrunoV]

AFL: Hold my beer.

True. It is AFL to a T.

 

[eth-dog]

So when can you then restructure the deal of an incoming player?

Does it have to become the only scenario in the AFL that a contract can't be renegotiated, because of sour grapes?

The AFL hasn't approved 7 yet.

You should be more worried that the premier sees a need for Bowes in its midfield when we see no hole.

What are you basing this on?

 

[faible]

What are you basing this on?

I believe it's the same source as the one that informed Bruno Hird was the leading candidate in the coaching search so they parachuted Scott in to come over the top.

 

[Dave]

But traded players can have their contracts renegotiated. Do you stop that rule?

For salary dump trades, yes.