List Mgmt. OFFICIAL: Dangerfield + Pick 50 for Picks 9, 28 and Dean Gore

[Burro]

Draft Tampering is illegal.. but it happens and the AFL has consistently turned a blind eye to it ever since the Chalmers affair, even though worse offences have been committed since then. Luke Ball nominated for the draft, but refused to sit a medical examination for any club other than Collingwood - how that was not deemed to be draft tampering is entirely beyond me. The only draft tampering case that I can recall since Chalmers is Adelaide being prosecuted over the Tiprat contract - and the AFL was right to do so on that occasion.

No player can be traded against their will, and forced to enter into a contract with their new club. The only way a player can be forced to enter a contract with a club they don't want to be at is if they nominate for the draft. Should they choose to do so (either ND or PSD), and nominate terms, then the following applies:

There is surprisingly little in the AFL Player Rules about the trading of players. The inability of clubs to force players to sign with non-preferred clubs is probably a matter of Australian Law, rather than an AFL imposed thing. The draft is different, because the act of nomination explicitly states that players accept that they could be selected by any club and agree to be bound to the club which drafts them.

At the end of the day, there is virtually no chance of Dangerfield ending up at a 3rd club during the trade period. He may end up at a 3rd club if no trade is done and he nominates for the ND or PSD (as is his right). It is in the best interests of all 3 parties to see that a deal is done - Adelaide, Geelong, and Dangerfield. For that reason, I expect that a deal will be done. Adelaide will get less than Dangerfield's worth, Geelong will pay more than they're happy with, and Dangerfield will be wearing blue & white hoops in 2016.

What restrictions does the AFL place on contract terms?..

 

[Vader]

What restrictions does the AFL place on contract terms?..

That's a very broad question...

There are virtually no restrictions when it comes to players being traded. Geelong can offer him a 1-year contract, or a 25 year contract (if they're stupid enough - Sydney offered Franklin 9 years). There is a minimum wage, but that's not really relevant when discussing Dangerfield.

Players specifying terms when nominating for the draft can specify a required salary, for a minimum of 2 years (no upper limit). If Dangerfield wants to, he can specify $1M per year for 5 years. Any club which is prepared to meet those terms can draft him, and he has to sign a contract with that club, for that salary, for that duration. I doubt there would be too many clubs that would baulk at those terms.

 

[Burro]

What about home location...travel...religious...fishing spots....etc I know this sounds stupid but we are talking about the AFL.

 

[Scottland2007]

He may end up at a 3rd club.

Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways. (I'm so sorry).

 

[Connoisseur]

That's beside the point.

You're damn right it's beside the point as the 2 scenarios have little to nothing in common. However it's only dimwitted crow flogs who keep bringing it up as if it's some sort of justification (or criticism for how Geelong handled it) of what's happening with Danger.

The gaj defection was between the AFL (they fund the GC 100%) and one established club, there was no way Geelong (or any other club) would come out of it anything but second best especially since gaj was made no attempt to hide his lust for lucre.

Whereas with Danger, it is between 2 equal entities who cannot circumvent rules like the AFL can and did to pull off what they wanted.

Moreover Danger is not motivated by unadulterated greed just the desire to be back where his immediate and extended family as well as his childhood friends reside.

As much as it pains the afc, they should do the decent thing for a footballer who gave it his all every time he stepped on the ground wearing the afc jumper and not create unnecessary stumbling blocks (unrealistic demands) in negotiations.

 

[Brentmeister]

You're damn right it's beside the point as the 2 scenarios have little to nothing in common. However it's only dimwitted crow flogs who keep bringing it up as if it's some sort of justification (or criticism for how Geelong handled it) of what's happening with Danger.

It was a Geelong poster who brought Ablett Jr up. Does that make him dimwitted or only Crows supporters?

As much as it pains the afc, they should do the decent thing for a footballer who gave it his all every time he stepped on the ground wearing the afc jumper and not create unnecessary stumbling blocks (unrealistic demands) in negotiations.

Crows aren't asking for 6 first round picks here. They'll be asking for Geelong's two first rounders in 2015 and 2016 which is still unders for a player of Dangerfield's calibre.

 

[LongBomb]

Crows aren't asking for 6 first round picks here. They'll be asking for Geelong's two first rounders in 2015 and 2016 which is still unders for a player of Dangerfield's calibre.

There is a formula in place for a team losing a player to FA.
It's a common misconception by many Adelaide supporters that this arrangement is meant to be equitable. It clearly isn't.

 

[Brentmeister]

There is a formula in place for a team losing a player to FA.
It's a common misconception by many Adelaide supporters that this arrangement is meant to be equitable. It clearly isn't.

The 'formula' (compo pick I presume you're talking about) only applies if the Crows don't match. If we match, it's a totally different ball game. It's just a standard trade scenario.

It's incumbent on Geelong to offer a Godfather deal which Adelaide can't or won't match if you want that formula to be of any relevance.

 

[witsend]

It was a Geelong poster who brought Ablett Jr up. Does that make him dimwitted or only Crows supporters?


Crows aren't asking for 6 first round picks here. They'll be asking for Geelong's two first rounders in 2015 and 2016 which is still unders for a player of Dangerfield's calibre.

The point you're missing is that the very nature of FA is that the club departed by the player will receive "unders", otherwise it's just a trade. PD has made a choice, as he is entitled to do as a professional. It's not money, it's family and lifestyle. He has given AFC years of dedicated service. Thank him, take our 2015 Pick 9 and wish him well. He's out the door...you will get unders. Accept the reality of FA.

 

[Brentmeister]

The point you're missing is that the very nature of FA is that the club departed by the player will receive "under", otherwise it's just a trade. PD has made a choice, as he is entitled to do as a professional. It's not money, it's family and lifestyle. He has given AFC years of dedicated service. Thank him, take our 2015 Pick 9 and wish him well. He's out the door...you will get under. Accept the reality of FA.

Incorrect, you are talking about the nature of unrestricted free agency and also RFA if Geelong offer a Godfather contract. If Geelong offer a reasonable contract for PD there's no longer any stipulation or implicit understanding that the original club will receive unders.

You are fundamentally getting confused between unrestricted free agency and restricted free agency.

 

[Jazz71286]

Incorrect, you are talking about the nature of unrestricted free agency and also RFA if Geelong offer a Godfather contract. If Geelong offer a reasonable contract for PD there's no longer any stipulation or implicit understanding that the original club will receive unders.

You are fundamentally getting confused between unrestricted free agency and restricted free agency.

Teams of departing players have historically received perceived unders, even more so now in an age whereby the player has more control over their movement.

Your refusal to accept this simply shows just how far down the rabbit hole you truly are.

 

[LongBomb]

It's incumbent on Geelong to offer a Godfather deal which Adelaide can't or won't match if you want that formula to be of any relevance.

If Adelaide are determined to match, the most likely scenario is they will end up with nothing.
Dangerfield will go into the PSD and either:
- a club will spend a top 8 pick to get him for one year before he ends up at Geelong the following year; OR
- clubs won't want to gamble away a pick like this and he will go to Geelong for their #9 pick

The only scenario which guarantees AFC compensation is the FA compo pick.

 

[witsend]

Incorrect, you are talking about the nature of unrestricted free agency and also RFA if Geelong offer a Godfather contract. If Geelong offer a reasonable contract for PD there's no longer any stipulation or implicit understanding that the original club will receive unders.

You are fundamentally getting confused between unrestricted free agency and restricted free agency.

I understand the difference. The only reason we're offering Pick 9 is he is restricted. Pick 9 is a fair deal for a club that has turned up to a gun-fight with a water pistol. In a pinch we'll offer up a list-clogger as well, or a 2-3 round pick swap as a "sweetener". if he was unrestricted you'd get the best part of f#*k all. Or you match (which you won't because the AFL and the AFLPA won't let you, and it would be either grossly incompetent or stupid by your club) and PD takes his chances in the draft.

 

[Brentmeister]

Teams of departing players have historically received perceived unders, even more so now in an age whereby the player has more control over their movement.

Your refusal to accept this simply shows just how far down the rabbit hole you truly are.

Two first rounders IS unders for Dangerfield. Therefore we realise we're likely to get unders.

If Adelaide are determined to match, the most likely scenario is they will end up with nothing.
Dangerfield will go into the PSD and either:
- a club will spend a top 8 pick to get him for one year before he ends up at Geelong the following year; OR
- clubs won't want to gamble away a pick like this and he will go to Geelong for their #9 pick

The only scenario which guarantees AFC compensation is the FA compo pick.

Patrick Dangerfield will not want to go to the PSD. He will put a lot of pressure (through his manager) on Geelong to make a fair trade with Adelaide. He does not want to end up at the Dees or someone similar. He's put all his eggs in the Geelong basket.

 

[Brentmeister]

I understand the difference. The only reason we're offering Pick 9 is he is restricted. Pick 9 is a fair deal for a club that has turned up to a gun-fight with a water pistol. In a pinch we'll offer up a list-clogger as well, or a 2-3 round pick swap as a "sweetener". if he was unrestricted you'd get the best part of f#*k all. Or you match (which you won't because the AFL and the AFLPA won't let you,m and it would be either grossly incompetent or stupid by your club) and PD takes his chances in the draft.

That is your opinion and you're entitled to it, although it's tragically off the mark.

 

[witsend]

Two first rounders IS unders for Dangerfield. Therefore we realise we're likely to get unders.


Patrick Dangerfield will not want to go to the PSD. He will put a lot of pressure (through his manager) on Geelong to make a fair trade with Adelaide. He does not want to end up at the Dees or someone similar. He's put all his eggs in the Geelong basket.

PD will, through his manager, put a lot of pressure on ADELAIDE FC, to accept whatever GFC offers, which will most likely be more than fair and generous considering AFC has absolutely no power in this scenario. He wants to go and FA is designed so he can go.

 

[witsend]

That is your opinion and you're entitled to it, although it's tragically off the mark.

Ditto...let's see where this lands. The overarching point to this whole deal is that PD no longer wants to play in Adelaide. This fact, coupled with FA rules, means AFC has NO bargaining power. All this talk of "matching" is posturing for the media, members and sponsors.

 

[Jbudds]

I understand the difference. The only reason we're offering Pick 9 is he is restricted. Pick 9 is a fair deal for a club that has turned up to a gun-fight with a water pistol. In a pinch we'll offer up a list-clogger as well, or a 2-3 round pick swap as a "sweetener". if he was unrestricted you'd get the best part of f#*k all. Or you match (which you won't because the AFL and the AFLPA won't let you, and it would be either grossly incompetent or stupid by your club) and PD takes his chances in the draft.

Aren't you in for a shock when when your club trades two first round picks (over two years) and Jordan Murdoch.

 

[witsend]

Aren't you in for a shock when when your club trades two first round picks (over two years) and Jordan Murdoch.

Correct...I would indeed be shocked.

 

[Jazz71286]

Two first rounders IS unders for Dangerfield. Therefore we realise we're likely to get unders.

And therein lies the reason both Geelong and Adelaide boards have threads are destined to go around in circles.

What you believe are unders (or what we believe are overs) is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim in support of an already firmly held position. Saying two first rounders are unders is simply your opinion on the matter and someone could, with just as much fervor argue that it is overs.

Trade scenarios are not conducted in a vacuum, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I really wish trade period would just start already.

 

[catempire]

Incorrect, you are talking about the nature of unrestricted free agency and also RFA if Geelong offer a Godfather contract. If Geelong offer a reasonable contract for PD there's no longer any stipulation or implicit understanding that the original club will receive unders.

You are fundamentally getting confused between unrestricted free agency and restricted free agency.

Receiving unders has nothing to do with free agency and everything to do with PD being OOC.

 

[Brentmeister]

Receiving unders has nothing to do with free agency and everything to do with PD being OOC.

Then why doesn't every club wanting to trade in a player just offer nothing and pick up the player in the PSD?

 

[Brentmeister]

And therein lies the reason both Geelong and Adelaide boards have threads are destined to go around in circles.

What you believe are unders (or what we believe are overs) is nothing but an unsubstantiated claim in support of an already firmly held position. Saying two first rounders are unders is simply your opinion on the matter and someone could, with just as much fervor argue that it is overs.

Trade scenarios are not conducted in a vacuum, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

My perception of "unders" is compared to Dangerfield's actual value as a player.

Your perception of "overs" is based on what you thought you'd be able to get Danger for as a free agent (nothing I presume). If Adelaide match, Danger is no longer a free agent, so that perception will have to change.

 

[catempire]

Then why doesn't every club wanting to trade in a player just offer nothing and pick up the player in the PSD?

Because the club losing the player inevitably chooses 'unders' over nothing and the club receiving the player prefers paying > zero to mitigate risk of not getting player in the draft.